Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: Why?

  1. #21
    A fountain of knowledge
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    380

    Smile Marquis v. Pirate

    Ah! Thank you, Alex. I couldn't imagine what the Marquis (or Yul Brynner, as I haven't seen the movie) was doing in the War of 1812. :)

    Just what is the "provincial" pronunciation? I learned to put the emphasis on the "fay" in LaFAYette Co., MS. What is the Big Easy version? Jean the pirate isn't pronounced "Lafeet?"

    Peggy

  2. #22
    CaseTested
    Guest

    Smile Lafayette...

    Hi Peggy:

    'Lafayette' and 'Lafitte' were once both pronounced "La-FEET". One must stop to consider that French spelling tends to preserve obsolete pronunciation rules. This is mainly due to extreme phonetic changes since the Old French period without any corresponding change in spelling. Especially so when you consider our local Creole, Cajun-French (Arcadian) and Patois speaking sub-cultures. There are even cities that have their own dialects (Breaux Bridge is one of them),
    Trying to figure it out grammatically or phonetically? The result is nearly impossible to predict the spelling based on the sound alone. Just remember that almost all French consonants are not pronounced and pronunciation of certain letters can change if the following word begins with a consonant. We place our emphasis on the last syllable. Anyway, you end up with Laf-ee-ET'.
    In Baton Rouge ( located half-way between New Orleans and Lafayette), we say ... laf-e-ET........ Whereas 'Nawlins' inhabitants tend to pronounce it about 6 different ways.
    Confusing, Non?

    Regards,
    Alex

  3. #23
    Famous for offering help & advice peter nicholl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    1,029

    Default Right Man, Wrong Spelling

    Thanks Alex
    As I say, right man, wrong spelling. Although I thought that I hadn't done too badly after 45 years and a film that I only saw through taking my sister, who had a crush on Yul Brynner . For the battle itself, it goes to just what a good defensive position will do. Sometimes it will only buy time as at Thermopylae and the Alamo, or may work out well for the defenders as at Rourke's Drift and New Orleans. I wonder whether Sir Edward Packenham thought "I have to hand it to Arthur, this must have been how the Frenchies felt at the Lines of Torres Vedras"?

    Was it all worth it? The same question may be asked of the Battle of Sedgemoor (its site is a few, in US terms, miles away from where I "pen" this) in 1685. The army of King James II defeated the Duke of Monmouth. Its outcome and the subsequent acts of Judge Jefferies and the Bloody Assizes are still a talking point hereabouts . But only 3 years later James himself had lost out to the Glorious Revolution. Sedgemoor is sometimes wrongly cited as the last battle on English soil, in fact we were still doing it up to the mid-1700s. But there again, it seems that it is a widely held view that the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the War was over, whereas Article 1 of the Treaty of Ghent talks of the cessation of hostilities after the Treaty is ratified and that didn't happen until mid-February.

    I wonder what percentage of present day English-speaking American families can trace their roots back to a presence in America prior to 1812? I suspect, not a lot, hence the War of 1812 was not a big issue for them. Although
    they may have brought other baggage with them, it was coming to a Land of Opportunity and some may even enjoyed what they saw during the War and couldn't wait to get back.

    As for the original lyrics, over here, while most people may just about manage the first verse, there are an awful lot of La-las during the second (if it ever gets that far!).

    Regards

    Peter

  4. #24
    Kathryn Norman
    Guest

    Smile Why?

    Hi Peter:
    To get back to the Revolution.......there are many English speaking Americans who can trace their families back to a time before the Revolution and whose families have gone on to fight in the War of 1812. Wasn't it the many English speaking "Colonists" who fought their former countrymen for their independence?
    Peace to all,I say....
    Kathryn Norman
    Last edited by Kathryn Norman; 24-01-2005 at 5:57 AM.

  5. #25
    Stephen M. Kohler
    Guest

    Default American War for Independence

    England had at first allowed the colonies the right to self government. Colonists created confederations between north eastern colonies (Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire) for protection against Indian attacks out of Canada. The crown attempted to establish a greater dominion through a single government over New England under the authority of one governor. Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and Jersey(s) were annexed into the dominion. In 1765 England imposed the Stamp Act to revenue the growing government. England attempted to gain greater control of New England and was non-negotiable about allowing the colonies self government. In the minds of the colonists taxation without consent was an intolerable innovation. The dislike of taxation coupled with a suspicion of a growing British government created the right combination for American Liberty or in other words the formula for freedom.

    By the way - There was no revolution but rather an American War for Independence (To throw off British rule, to retain liberty, and maintain self government).

    Respectfully submitted,
    Stephen
    (Descended from Loyalists, Hessians, and colonists fighting for and against American Independence)

  6. #26
    Stephen M. Kohler
    Guest

    Default

    Kathryn,
    It was a well constructed rhetorical question, but yes, for the most part it was English speaking "Colonists" who fought their former countrymen for their independence? However, there were Germans on both sides, and French and Polish on the American side.

    “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people – a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.” John Jay in the Federalist #2

    /R
    Stephen
    Washington, DC

  7. #27
    A fountain of knowledge
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    380

    Smile Roots

    Hello Stephen,

    Wait a sec! <g> What about my Dutch ancestors? Most (but not all) of the earlier Dutch, French, German, and other immigrants [18 languages were spoken in New Amsterdam] were speaking English by the 1770's. Their descendants could be found in several colonies.

    But when it comes to being descended from the same ancestors and professing the same religion . . . I suppose that's what Jay would have liked "Providence" to have arranged.

    Peggy
    (Descended from Dutch, English, Swedish Pomeranian, French, Scots, Palatine German, & other ancestors of varying religions, and with relatives who fought on both sides.)

  8. #28
    Stephen M. Kohler
    Guest

    Default

    Hello Peggy,
    I stand corrected. We can not forget the New Amsterdam aka New York Dutch or the many other nationalities involved in the birth of a nation. The bloodlines and the social congregations of the Dutch and the British had been interwined for several centuries by that time. Many of the English ships were piloted by Dutch pilots. All of whom spoke one modicum or another of English.

    My Hessian Soldier, Private Christian Schweinsberger, gggggreatgrandfather married Catherine Harple (of Dutch or Prussian descent) living in New York City during the AWI.

    /R

    Stephen
    Washington, DC

  9. #29
    Stephen M. Kohler
    Guest

    Wink The Misunderstood American Indian and the Misunderstood Tory

    I noticed that an interesting thread “WHY” stopped here after this post and the next. I further noticed that neither the author of this post or the following post ever wrote another post within this forum. Interestingly, although the author claims they wrote this on American Independence Day (the Fourth of July) it was posted 05-07-2005, 03:37 AM (May 07). Although I don’t believe there was any intent of continuing the argument about North American Indians, Tories, or Patriots I propose we look at these subjects deeper and discuss it from another perspective – one of rational not righteousness, and truth not emotion.

    There is a great deal of misunderstanding about the role of the North American Indian and the Tory in the War for Independence. Like any of the Crown of England’s subjects living amongst the immigrant European population east of the Ohio River the Indian and the Tory chose their future with their loyalty or commitment to conscientious objection to the war. Some chose better than others. Today a large number of the surviving original English and Scots Irish settler families of the colonies not only have the blood of Indians on their hands (historically) but in their loins (genealogically) as well. Likewise, a growing number of Americans are discovering their lineages contain the Tory story too. I’ll separate these conversations over the next two posts.

    /R

    Stephen
    Washington, DC

  10. #30
    Stephen M. Kohler
    Guest

    Cool Pre-Columbian North Americans

    Here are some interesting ideas to pursue in conversation about the early British Colonist and American Citizens. There are studies that indicate that the Northern European gene pool is limited and interesting (Celt/Germanic). Likewise there also is evidence that the gene pools of the Atlantic Maritime Islands and New England stemming from the earliest introduction of Europeans are limited and interesting (Celt/Germanic/Indian).

    Indians living on the Atlantic Seaboard of Eastern Canada and the United States share many common ancestors with the Celtic/Germanic peoples of the British Isles – and did long before Bjarni Herjolfsson, Leaf Erikson, Erik the Red, St. Brendan, or any Basque fishermen, Portuguese, Chinese, Japanese, Africans, and/or Phonecians/Carthaginians ever adventured to the Americas.

    Long before the Cherokee, Algonquin, and Iraquois inhabited the areas east of the Appalachian Mountains and west of the Atlantic Ocean there existed a great people that the Cherokee best describe as resembling Celtic peoples. The Iraquois explain that these people arrived on boats hundreds of years earlier from the Atlantic Ocean. It is important to note that the Cherokee, Algonquin, and Iraquois people did not inhabit the regions east of the Appalachians until after Columbus arrived and these Celtic peoples had perished from a plague like disease that was introduced by the Spanish explorers. Those that survived were absorbed by the Cherokee Nation, the Algonquin Confederation, and the Iroquois Nation or captured and sold into slavery by the Spanish. The existence of these Celts in the Americas might certainly explain the many Celtic, Hebrew, and Roman artifacts and coins found over the last few centuries in archeological digs within North America.

    /R

    Stephen
    Washington, DC
    Last edited by Stephen M. Kohler; 08-02-2007 at 5:48 PM.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: