Zompist Bboard Again

Thank you, too!

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 4:13 pm I'm a bit surprised to learn that Chinese academics grant any "barbarian" rulers the title huángdì (皇帝).

Let's not go overboard on the exotification. China traditionally was the major power of its region— though that has to be hedged by the fact that, for the last thousand years, it was ruled as often as not by nomads. It was not a xenophobic nation, not in the way Japan or England can be said to be. It was perfectly able to borrow external ideas like Buddhism, nomadic styles of food and music and clothing, and New World foods. And in the last century— with struggle— it adopted Western communism and then capitalism. How long did it take for European nations to accept non-Europeans as equals?

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 4:40 pm
Let's not go overboard on the exotification. China traditionally was the major power of its region— though that has to be hedged by the fact that, for the last thousand years, it was ruled as often as not by nomads. It was not a xenophobic nation, not in the way Japan or England can be said to be. It was perfectly able to borrow external ideas like Buddhism, nomadic styles of food and music and clothing, and New World foods. And in the last century— with struggle— it adopted Western communism and then capitalism. How long did it take for European nations to accept non-Europeans as equals?

Fair enough. Though, if borrowing external ideas would be a safe sign of non-xenophobia, then Japan, which you yourself call xenophobic, would have to be seen as non-xenophobic, too.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 4:40 pmIt was not a xenophobic nation, not in the way Japan or England can be said to be. It was perfectly able to borrow external ideas like Buddhism, nomadic styles of food and music and clothing, and New World foods.

Not to defend England by any means, but can you really consider it as xenophobic as Japan or less so than China? It has vastly more immigrants or descendants of recent immigrants than Japan or China for that matter. It even had an Asian prime minister before the last election.

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 4:45 pm Fair enough. Though, if borrowing external ideas would be a safe sign of non-xenophobia, then Japan, which you yourself call xenophobic, would have to be seen as non-xenophobic, too.

The Japanese like foreign ideas; they just aren't keen on foreigners.

This is a huge generalization, of course, and like many attitudes it may be changing, though slowly.

malloc wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 5:36 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 4:40 pmIt was not a xenophobic nation, not in the way Japan or England can be said to be. It was perfectly able to borrow external ideas like Buddhism, nomadic styles of food and music and clothing, and New World foods.

Not to defend England by any means, but can you really consider it as xenophobic as Japan or less so than China? It has vastly more immigrants or descendants of recent immigrants than Japan or China for that matter. It even had an Asian prime minister before the last election.

You ever hear of a thing called Brexit? One of the major triggering issues was immigration— especially of those pesky Europeans. As for people of color, the Tory idea was to deport them all to Rwanda.

Again, things may have changed or be changing, but traditionally— as reported by Orwell, for instance— the British disliked pretty much all foreigners, while (say) the French were amused by them.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 6:11 pmYou ever hear of a thing called Brexit? One of the major triggering issues was immigration— especially of those pesky Europeans. As for people of color, the Tory idea was to deport them all to Rwanda.

Well yes and I certainly wouldn't deny that Britain has its share of bigots. Nonetheless the same Tories who wanted to deport all people of color also chose an Asian as prime minister. China meanwhile is well-known for its harsh repression of ethnic minorities like the Uyghurs.

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 4:13 pm I'm a bit surprised to learn that Chinese academics grant any "barbarian" rulers the title huángdì (皇帝).

I'd guess that it helps the Roman Emperors are all safely dead.

It might seem a bit surprising that one and the same country produced Nigel Farage, the Bullingdon Club, and a shitton of intelligent, insightful, well-written, self-aware, self-deprecating, witty, and funny popular culture. But keep in mind that most countries, even if they aren't as large or populous as China, India, Indonesia, or the USA, are still big, and can therefore contain multitudes.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 6:11 pm while (say) the French were amused by them.

Wouldn't that require them to be aware of their existence in the first place?

One thing that always gets me about the British is that the wogs begin at Calais, whereas the same people who they consider wogs are much of the time considered very much White here in the United States, where even the most bigoted Americans wouldn't blink an eye at them.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 10:57 pm One thing that always gets me about the British is that the wogs begin at Calais, whereas the same people who they consider wogs are much of the time considered very much White here in the United States, where even the most bigoted Americans wouldn't blink an eye at them.

If I remember correctly, wogs are Italians (and sometimes Greeks), right?

Northern Italians usually didn't an eyeblink, historically; southern Italians usually did...Sardinians, Sicilians, Naples, and thereabouts.

(though even the northern ones were accused of being Papists, whether they were Catholic or not)

malloc wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 6:39 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 6:11 pmYou ever hear of a thing called Brexit? One of the major triggering issues was immigration— especially of those pesky Europeans. As for people of color, the Tory idea was to deport them all to Rwanda.

Well yes and I certainly wouldn't deny that Britain has its share of bigots. Nonetheless the same Tories who wanted to deport all people of color also chose an Asian as prime minister. China meanwhile is well-known for its harsh repression of ethnic minorities like the Uyghurs.

I can't stand the modern Conservative Party, which has become little more than a pale shadow of UKIP/Reform with a legacy more moderate vote, but let's be clear: they did not want to deport all people of colour, which would be an extreme fringe position well beyond even the nuttier corners of Reform. As you say, the Tories' previous leader was Asian and their current leader is black. The Rwanda proposal, bad as it was, was for new arrivals claiming asylum.

The UK certainly has problems with racism and people blaming all the ills of the world on immigrants and Muslims. But which western democracy does not?

Perhaps it's time to get this thread back to linguistic miscellany?

keenir wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 12:56 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 10:57 pm One thing that always gets me about the British is that the wogs begin at Calais, whereas the same people who they consider wogs are much of the time considered very much White here in the United States, where even the most bigoted Americans wouldn't blink an eye at them.

If I remember correctly, wogs are Italians (and sometimes Greeks), right?

Depends on the country. In Australia, I think you're right. In Britain, I think it originally meant darker-skinned people - the "begin at Calais" expansion came later - so writing the word out in full is probably inappropriate.

Is it true that China treated the Japanese Emperor as a vassal king? IIRC when Japan took over Ryukyu, they pretended that Ryukyu was still a vassal of China.

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 3:28 am

keenir wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 12:56 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 10:57 pm One thing that always gets me about the British is that the wogs begin at Calais, whereas the same people who they consider wogs are much of the time considered very much White here in the United States, where even the most bigoted Americans wouldn't blink an eye at them.

If I remember correctly, wogs are Italians (and sometimes Greeks), right?

Depends on the country. In Australia, I think you're right. In Britain, I think it originally meant darker-skinned people - the "begin at Calais" expansion came later - so writing the word out in full is probably inappropriate.

It's a very general term, though discussions such as whether it is applicable to you may yet results in the deaths of the ageist woke racists (their definition!) of the MBDA HR department. I suspect the meaning is very idiolect-dependent, and I believe it has a strong cultural element.

It's amazing how many Britons are nowadays unaware of the saying "Wogs begin at Calais".

While I've been surprised at the number of leading non-white women in the Conservative party, what is also very striking is that they have white husbands. Even the forlorn moderate hope for the Conservative party, James Cleverley, had a white father, as did former Welsh first minister Vaughan Gething.

Technically, British English lacks a word for 'foreigner', as in law Commonwealth citizens are not foreigners. (Nor, by the Ireland Act 1948, are Irish citizens.) Australian law has no problem declaring Britain to be a foreign power.

I had someone I had not spoken with before today besides saying "hi" correctly guess I am from Milwaukee (well, I technically grew up in a suburb of Milwaukee, but then the house I grew up in was only half a block away, so close enough) without me even mentioning anything that might give away where I am from. Of course, it turns out that this person lives in Milwaukee and goes to a college (he's an intern) in the same suburb where I grew up.

Does Standard Swedish kyrka reflect direct influence from Byzantine Greek, since ON had kirkja (note the unrounded vowel), itself a loan from OE cirice (Late PWGmc *kirikā), but Byzantine Greek had κυριακόν (δόμα)?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 12:56 am Does Standard Swedish kyrka reflect direct influence from Byzantine Greek, since ON had kirkja (note the unrounded vowel), itself a loan from OE cirice (Late PWGmc *kirikā), but Byzantine Greek had κυριακόν (δόμα)?

I doubt that; it rather looks like a tendency to darken front vowels near retroflexes such as /r/. In this part of Germany, the word Kirche is pronounced something like [kɨɐçə].

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 12:56 am Does Standard Swedish kyrka reflect direct influence from Byzantine Greek, since ON had kirkja (note the unrounded vowel), itself a loan from OE cirice (Late PWGmc *kirikā), but Byzantine Greek had κυριακόν (δόμα)?

This is not a specifically Swedish development, there is an old variation in North Germanic between kyrkja and kirkja, and I think both variants are found in early manuscripts from most of the North Germanic area. This may also still be the source of some modern dialectal variation (cf. Nynorsk kyrkje and kirkje, and the many other variants of this word).

North Germanic can sometimes show the development i > y in some words, usually explaned as u-umlaut. This change is very irregular and subject to dialectal variation (cf. Swedish mycket and Icelandic mikið). However, in this case I think North Germanic may actually have borrowed the variation from Old English, which also has both ċyriċe and ċiriċe. Why Old English had both forms I don't know, and I also haven't done much research to see if someone has written more about it. It's possible that the forms with y reflect Greek pronunciation at the time somehow, or at least Greek spelling.

Ephraim wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:59 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 12:56 am Does Standard Swedish kyrka reflect direct influence from Byzantine Greek, since ON had kirkja (note the unrounded vowel), itself a loan from OE cirice (Late PWGmc *kirikā), but Byzantine Greek had κυριακόν (δόμα)?

This is not a specifically Swedish development, there is an old variation in North Germanic between kyrkja and kirkja, and I think both variants are found in early manuscripts from most of the North Germanic area. This may also still be the source of some modern dialectal variation (cf. Nynorsk kyrkje and kirkje, and the many other variants of this word).

North Germanic can sometimes show the development i > y in some words, usually explaned as u-umlaut. This change is very irregular and subject to dialectal variation (cf. Swedish mycket and Icelandic mikið). However, in this case I think North Germanic may actually have borrowed the variation from Old English, which also has both ċyriċe and ċiriċe. Why Old English had both forms I don't know, and I also haven't done much research to see if someone has written more about it. It's possible that the forms with y reflect Greek pronunciation at the time somehow, or at least Greek spelling.

My guess is that the variation is because of influence from Greek, that could have persisted due to orthography even after iotacism fully took hold (note how Greek ⟨υ⟩ generally maps to a rounded front vowel in StG to this day, even though Kirche is an exception).