If You Were Transported 300 Years Into The Past With No Clothes Or Anything Else, How Would You Prov

[jobo]

Are we getting hot? I was just having a little fun responding to you the way you respond to others. I think it's actually pretty promising that you see how dysfunctional it seems.

Just to lift the veil for you, the key ick a detail that is irrelevant, nit pick that detail, and then at any point, pick another detail and nit pick that, then later, randomly start gaslighting everyone with a version of the previous exchange on detail number 1 that is entirely divorced from reality, and use that to spin off on a different tangent about a third detail that is said with confidence but may or may not be true. It's a predictable formula. Just trying it on for fun.

it did seem to be gettibg a bit personal, you usualy wait till youve lost to do that

im only intrested in a discusion and some banter, if you cant manage that with out getting into petty insults il just ignore you, its rather your loss

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

it did seem to be gettibg a bit personal, you usualy wait till youve lost to do that

im only intrested in a discusion and some banter, if you cant manage that with out getting into petty insults il just ignore you, its rather your loss

What was the insult? I can understand how being called an englishman instead might be insulting to some, but surely you've embraced that by now?

 

[jobo]

What was the insult? I can understand how being called an englishman instead might be insulting to some, but surely you've embraced that by now?

he said i was the sort of person that shoots people in the back, several times with ibcreasibg malice as i didnt repond the first time,

its obviously a big thing to him, , he is just carrying a grudge and trying to pick a fight, its a bit pathetic really

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

he said i was the sort of person that shoots people in the back, several times with ibcreasibg malice as i didnt repond the first time,

its obviously a big thing to him, , he is just carrying a grudge and trying to pick a fight, its a bit pathetic really

This is what I get for skimming. I thought you had said you'd do that as you'd be an american, and he just said that was a british thing.

 

[jobo]

This is what I get for skimming. I thought you had said you'd do that as you'd be an american, and he just said that was a british thing.

i dont care, its just some giy 2000 miles away with a problem, thats the internet for you, seemlingly very few peopke can have a discusion with out gettibg cross,, the problem is, it will escalate and then the thread will be shut down, and im quite enjoying it

so il just blank him,

 

[Steve]

he said i was the sort of person that shoots people in the back, several times with ibcreasibg malice as i didnt repond the first time,

its obviously a big thing to him, , he is just carrying a grudge and trying to pick a fight, its a bit pathetic really

aww. I'm sorry jobo. Poor guy. Having a rough day.

Just a movie clip that reminded me of you.

I'm sincerely shocked you're sensitive to a perceived slight considering how offensive you are in most threads. I am still salty that you casually accused me of cowardice and then called my entire family warmongers. Sure. Instead of apologizing, you doubled down.bbto be honest, it's completely changed my opinion of you for the worse. I have zero respect for you or anything you say.

But that's not why you reminded me of that movie.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

it did seem to be gettibg a bit personal, you usualy wait till youve lost to do that

im only intrested in a discusion and some banter, if you cant manage that with out getting into petty insults il just ignore you, its rather your loss

I think you just made his point.

 

[Chrisinmd]

i dont care, its just some giy 2000 miles away with a problem, thats the internet for you, seemlingly very few peopke can have a discusion with out gettibg cross,, the problem is, it will escalate and then the thread will be shut down, and im quite enjoying it

so il just blank him,

Wow never thought my forum question on history would lead to such a heated discussion! Glad I post questions that lead to such passionate discussions! lol

 

[Steve]

Wow never thought my forum question on history would lead to such a heated discussion! Glad I post questions that lead to such passionate discussions! lol

I really didn't think it was getting heated. Well, there ya go.

 

[Tez3]

Ah yes, because chav has been a long standing word in the english vocabulary since william the bastard and has in no way changed its meaning or usage or spelling over the years.


I highlight my point in stating, i have no idea what people are saying using modern english with a strong diffrent accent to mine (specfically northern) x10 down to a lot of more regional accents than there are now and a less common form of english and tada. That and spelling was diffrent and illteracy was lower than now. You might be able to converse with a london nobleman to some degree, but i would be doubtful if you could converse with a Scottish commoner or a farmer from rural england.

But i did a approcximication of the time peroid and estimated it earlier than it actually is, i think Shakspere is coined as making or using at least the basis for modern english(upper) common. So this is after him, so it wouldnt be as hyperbolic as i made to begin with with talking if you got a nobleman, but you wouldnt see a noble man as you would be killed or locked up in a asylum. (god help you if you land in japan)


Actually exploring that, i dont know Cockney, i cant understand northern accents and i cant understand west country, i can barely understand the tradtional accent of my county down to it dying and not being exposed to it, i sort of have it light by merits of living there. You just have to times this by 10 as there were a lot more regional accents back then as there is now. I will give you a neat trend for the peroid, a D meant ditto, that was how they did ditto historically before we started just putting a line. Or a D + the line. Not much relivence its just a fun little tid bit.

Actually 'chav' is an old word, it's existed since the 19th century and is mentioned by lexicographer Eric Partidge in his dictionary of 1950, giving its date of origin as c1860. Mostly likely a Romany word.

 

[Tez3]

Thanks for the link and info. I just watched this video from the link.

Elizabethan English is easy to understand (I've watched the OU programme before) it sounds like an English West Country accent. If you like comedy and Shakespeare see if you can watch 'Upstart Crow'.

 

[Steve]

Elizabethan English is easy to understand (I've watched the OU programme before) it sounds like an English West Country accent. If you like comedy and Shakespeare see if you can watch 'Upstart Crow'.

Years ago at the university, I read Chaucer in middle English and Beowulf in Old English. The Canterbury Tales and Troilus and Crysede, if I remember correctly. I found it was pretty easy to understand when read, but the pronunciation was completely foreign. Beowulf was more challenging, as I recall.

Edit: Just to clarify, I never understood why Shakespeare was considered difficult to understand. We did a production of A Midsummer Night's Dream in the 4th grade. It's not that different. While the spelling was all over the place, if you read things phonetically, it was pretty clear what the words were (though the subtext might be a little above a 4th grader's head). I found even Middle English to be pretty straightforward. It's that Old English that got squirrelly.

 

[JP3]

well thats just a typical defeatest attitude, of course you could travel though area controled by other eurooean powers, we wernt at war with them and its highly unlikely they would even notoce you, with a few thousand of them controlling million of square miles, if i could travel to spain or france,( and i certainly could) i could also travel to spanish of french territories in the new world,, the europeans had a few thousand years of civilisation behind them, it was only when they left that the place desended into barbarism
( ok the spanish left a little to be desired)

and i dont want to be over picky, what with it being your countries history, but the California gold rush was in California not Oregon, and califoria was controled by no one, with the exception of the native Americans, who clearly werent very intrested in gold and were noted as being amenable, by the few europeans that got that way out, still shouldnt be that hard to dodge them

You do realize that Oregon is just to the North of California, don't you? The reason folks seemed to like the Oregon Trail, once it was made, as you had a trail wide enough for two wagons to pass each other going the opposite way. Gasp! That's progress. Then, I suppose if you've already done ~2K or ~2.5K miles, the little shot down to Northern California was no big deal.

I still like my idea of industrial espionage on Eli Whitney.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Actually 'chav' is an old word, it's existed since the 19th century and is mentioned by lexicographer Eric Partidge in his dictionary of 1950, giving its date of origin as c1860. Mostly likely a Romany word.

Still doesnt dispute how its meaning has more than likely changed and drastically over that peroid, and the time frame is still 100 years off to the peroid in question.


I wouldnt consider 1800's old, as far as i recall that is literally modern english, or at least the foundations of it, you would be able to talk to somone in 1850 using todays english much easier than somone in 1700. Better wording may be, 1850's english is last generations, maybe the generation befores english. Anyway, wording may be off but i belive i relayed my point sufficently.

 

[Tez3]

Still doesnt dispute how its meaning has more than likely changed and drastically over that peroid, and the time frame is still 100 years off to the peroid in question.


I wouldnt consider 1800's old, as far as i recall that is literally modern english, or at least the foundations of it, you would be able to talk to somone in 1850 using todays english much easier than somone in 1700. Better wording may be, 1850's english is last generations, maybe the generation befores english. Anyway, wording may be off but i belive i relayed my point sufficently.

As you cannot even write 'modern' English I don't think you can be classed in any way an expert on what English is or isn't. Your opinions are just that, opinions, there's no validity in what you think. I'll take the professor's professional assessment over yours and his rendering of 18th century English was perfectly understandable to me.
If you think the 1850s is the generation before I think your maths skills are as lacking as your English ones. I'm in my sixties, that generation would be my great grandparent's one not the generation before mine. cable
Your opinions fly in the face of all the experts considerable knowledge and study, I'd just give it up if I were you.

 

[Tez3]

Years ago at the university, I read Chaucer in middle English and Beowulf in Old English. The Canterbury Tales and Troilus and Crysede, if I remember correctly. I found it was pretty easy to understand when read, but the pronunciation was completely foreign. Beowulf was more challenging, as I recall.

Edit: Just to clarify, I never understood why Shakespeare was considered difficult to understand. We did a production of A Midsummer Night's Dream in the 4th grade. It's not that different. While the spelling was all over the place, if you read things phonetically, it was pretty clear what the words were (though the subtext might be a little above a 4th grader's head). I found even Middle English to be pretty straightforward. It's that Old English that got squirrelly.

Old English is very difficult, more like a different language altogether, but like you I've always found Shakespeare easy to understand. If you can find videos of the actor who plays Loki in the Thor films etc, Tom Hiddleston do watch him, he's considered one of the finest Shakespearean actors ever, his Henry V is stunning, especially 'that speech'. I was totally enthralled.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

As you cannot even write 'modern' English I don't think you can be classed in any way an expert on what English is or isn't. Your opinions are just that, opinions, there's no validity in what you think. I'll take the professor's professional assessment over yours and his rendering of 18th century English was perfectly understandable to me.

I wouldnt start with English corrections unless you want a very keen eye addressed to your writings on here, that is just advise. And that is factually false, as i am typing and English Literature and Lanagauge are sub divided into many sections and the history of the english langauge is completely seperate to your ability to use it. (as the HISTORICAL STUDY of English, is a hisotrical subject)

And your opinions are just that opinions, that proffesors opinions are just that opinions, i care not for whos word you take over whos, the proffesor is not above critique or review or mistake, and you are not them. I am also confused as to what proffesor you mean as you cited none for the 18th centuary? The 1800's is not the 18th centuary.

If you think the 1850s is the generation before I think your maths skills are as lacking as your English ones. I'm in my sixties, that generation would be my great grandparent's one not the generation before mine. cable

I made no statement to that effect. My statement on generations is in regards to the English langauge, not human generations.


Final notes: This reply to mine is meerly pathetic. Your appeal to authorty and attemps to defame my character based on lack of skill fall short as you fail to not have several logcal fallacies and go on a no squitor to my direct reply to you. You then call the kettle black as you misuse centuaries in the hisotrical classification usage, and display a lack of reading skills. Alongside the potetional lack of grammar in your reply.

Unless you with to argue the point with me, do not bother replying. I have better things to do than to entertain a strawman and a Adhominen cesspit like the reply above, good day.

 

[Tez3]

I wouldnt start with English corrections unless you want a very keen eye addressed to your writings on here, that is just advise. And that is factually false, as i am typing and English Literature and Lanagauge are sub divided into many sections and the history of the english langauge is completely seperate to your ability to use it. (as the HISTORICAL STUDY of English, is a hisotrical subject)

And your opinions are just that opinions, that proffesors opinions are just that opinions, i care not for whos word you take over whos, the proffesor is not above critique or review or mistake, and you are not them. I am also confused as to what proffesor you mean as you cited none for the 18th centuary? The 1800's is not the 18th centuary.



I made no statement to that effect. My statement on generations is in regards to the English langauge, not human generations.


Final notes: This reply to mine is meerly pathetic. Your appeal to authorty and attemps to defame my character based on lack of skill fall short as you fail to not have several logcal fallacies and go on a no squitor to my direct reply to you. You then call the kettle black as you misuse centuaries in the hisotrical classification usage, and display a lack of reading skills. Alongside the potetional lack of grammar in your reply.

Unless you with to argue the point with me, do not bother replying. I have better things to do than to entertain a strawman and a Adhominen cesspit like the reply above, good day.

Thank you for one of the funniest posts on here I've ever read, you set yourself up as an expert in English and we get this, centaurs and hisotrical potetionals.

Bad spelling, no grammar and the mangling of the English language wouldn't matter as much if we were discussing anything other than the English language!!

I can see why you don't want to discuss it further lol, and are miffed at being challenged, after all who am I with my O and A levels in English and English Literature plus my 1:1 degree in English (from a university founded in 1495 lol) to know anything eh.

Oh and I think you mean 'non sequitur' I think a 'no squitor' is someone who doesn't have diarrhoea.

 

[Chrisinmd]

the whole histoory if the world hinges on( a few) events that could easily have gone the other way, but for good luck, bad weather or what have you

This is very true. Lots of random events that could have gone either way changed the world.

What if President Lincolns bodyguard had not went off and got drunk when he was supposed to be standing guard and instead ended up stopping Lincolns killing? How much would that have changed the world?

Or if the flight screeners on 9/11 actually done their job and found the boxcutters the terrorists had on them. No 9/11.

Thousands of examples like these. A lot of stuff just comes down to random chance and dumb luck

 

[jobo]

This is very true. Lots of random events that could have gone either way changed the world.

What if President Lincolns bodyguard had not went off and got drunk when he was supposed to be standing guard and instead ended up stopping Lincolns killing? How much would that have changed the world?

Or if the flight screeners on 9/11 actually done their job and found the boxcutters the terrorists had on them. No 9/11.

Thousands of examples like these. A lot of stuff just comes down to random chance and dumb luck

agree, but then as i said some thinks look inevitable , if not in the specific then in the general, if wilks booth had failed that night, would he or someone else have suceeded a fortnight later, AL had annoyed an awful lot of people, the presidents security right up to RR left a LoT to be desired, he was first the first of a few.

same with 9,11 the attack was amateur hour, which may be why it succeded, it was so badly planned and executed, that no stratgist in their right mind would have predicted it, a major terrorist act on america was however odds on, the 7,7 attacks on London conerned blowibg up packed tube trains, there no way to actually stop that other than intel, so theres a good chance that something a bit like 9,11 would have occured some time later, how much a change of venue would have effected thr big picture out come, is open to debate, clearly the twin towers were on top of the dreadfull death toll, an inconic target, would the invasions, wars and legal frame work have been greatly different if it had been a more mundane target