I believe that an international organization exists named the "Latin Union" regrouping all the countries having narrow reports with a neo-Latin language.
I suppose Irrintz was trying to point out that a similar cultural concept exists.
With regards to Nigella Lawson, I do not mind watching her cooking programme. She's the exception. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
I suppose Irrintz was trying to point out that a similar cultural concept exists.
Except that it's not quite the same idea. The Latin Union is a kind of geopolitical organisation for countries that uses a Latin-derived language.
On the other hand, the 'Anglosphere' is a concept invented largely by James C. Bennett (an American businessman), which groups all more economically developed English-speaking (and preferably 'white-majority') societies together, projects various values which he finds appealing onto them, and argues that they are superior to all other societies. Here's the book in which he does just that:
http://www.anglospherechallenge.com/
the 'Anglosphere' is a concept invented largely by James C. Bennett (an American businessman), which groups all more economically developed English-speaking (and preferably 'white-majority') societies together, projects various values which he finds appealing onto them, and argues that they are superior to all other societies.
Yes, in about 2000, and he still does now. Basically, he claims that only the more economically developed 'white-majority' English-speaking societies* are sufficiently 'open and receptive to the world, its people, and its ideas'.
* He tends to focus primarily on the United States, Canada, Britain and New Zealand, whilst also mentioning white English-speaking South Africans. For some reason, he and other supporters of this concept tend not to say so much about Ireland, although I cannot understand why. Actually, I have even seen some such people suggest that South Africa should be included in the 'Anglosphere' concept, whilst Ireland should be excluded.
Except that it's not quite the same idea. The Latin Union is a kind of geopolitical organisation for countries that uses a Latin-derived language
Actually the latin union is not really a geopolitical organisation, but almost only a linguistic/cultural one. It is a quite small organisation, even if it concerns a lot of countries - they have their headquarters just in the same street than my job - their role is mainly to organise exhibitions, language promotions, ect.
Quote:
On the other hand, the 'Anglosphere' is a concept invented largely by James C. Bennett (an American businessman), which groups all more economically developed English-speaking (and preferably 'white-majority') societies together, projects various values which he finds appealing onto them, and argues that they are superior to all other societies. Here's the book in which he does just that:
http://www.anglospherechallenge.com/
I don't see it that way. to me "anglosphere" is just a grouping of countries who had a historical and linguistico-cultural link to England.
On the other hand, the 'Anglosphere' is a concept invented largely by James C. Bennett (an American businessman), which groups all more economically developed English-speaking (and preferably 'white-majority') societies together, projects various values which he finds appealing onto them, and argues that they are superior to all other societies. Here's the book in which he does just that:
http://www.anglospherechallenge.com/
I don't see it that way. to me "anglosphere" is just a grouping of countries who had a historical and linguistico-cultural link to England.
The thing is, the term 'Anglosphere' is very rarely used (at least in English). And when it is, it tends to be used in the context of James C. Bennett's ideas.
I wouldn't be opposed to it if it simply referred to any society for which English is a primary or significant language, but it unfortunately has other connotations. That is why I prefer to say 'English-speaking world' instead.
On the other hand, the 'Anglosphere' is a concept invented largely by James C. Bennett (an American businessman), which groups all more economically developed English-speaking (and preferably 'white-majority') societies together, projects various values which he finds appealing onto them, and argues that they are superior to all other societies. Here's the book in which he does just that:
http://www.anglospherechallenge.com/
I don't see it that way. to me "anglosphere" is just a grouping of countries who had a historical and linguistico-cultural link to England.
The thing is, the term 'Anglosphere' is very rarely used (at least in English). And when it is, it tends to be used in the context of James C. Bennett's ideas.
I wouldn't be opposed to it if it simply referred to any society for which English is a primary or significant language, but it unfortunately has other connotations. That is why I prefer to say 'English-speaking world' instead.
I just say the "Anglo" world. But for someone like me with Welsh ancestry, this also presents a problem, lol. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
How about "Anglophony"? Its connotations are more strictly linguistic, and it fits with "Francophony" and a wealth of other possible versions like "Hispanophony", "Lusophony", etc.
Because there are attributes shared between the Anglo countries which go beyond mere linguistic ties. There are also the economic, political, and cultural ties between the countries, often transmitted by the media, due to a shared language. I always see the U.S. as being the most different out of the group which includes Britain and all of the "commonwealth nations". _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
That's true; if we defined "Anglophony" in the same way they define "Francophony", then it would include India and Britain's former African colonies. The "Anglosphere" or "Anglo world" concept would be more restricted - basically the US, Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand.
Yeah but you know what? Things would just be so much simpler if Britain and Spain had conquered or colonized the whole world. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
That's true; if we defined "Anglophony" in the same way they define "Francophony", then it would include India and Britain's former African colonies. The "Anglosphere" or "Anglo world" concept would be more restricted - basically the US, Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand.
The thing with places like India and Nigeria (etc.) is that very few people there are native English speakers, and only more educated people there can speak English. That is why I do not feel that they should be included in such a concept. However, I definitely want to include Jamaica and the other English-speaking countries in the Caribbean into this concept, whatever it's called.
Because there are attributes shared between the Anglo countries which go beyond mere linguistic ties. There are also the economic, political, and cultural ties between the countries, often transmitted by the media, due to a shared language. I always see the U.S. as being the most different out of the group which includes Britain and all of the "commonwealth nations".
We have a word for that in French, that carries that meanings, but you guys seems not to like it ! It's A...-s...
I don't see really the US been so different from the others. I tend to think more that Britains is - since it has recently recieved a lot of influences from the continental Europe, with which it share a old history - and also because it doesn't share the specificities of newly huge created countries in wild territories that we find in the US, Canada or Australia.
Because there are attributes shared between the Anglo countries which go beyond mere linguistic ties. There are also the economic, political, and cultural ties between the countries, often transmitted by the media, due to a shared language. I always see the U.S. as being the most different out of the group which includes Britain and all of the "commonwealth nations".
We have a word for that in French, that carries that meanings, but you guys seems not to like it ! It's A...-s...
I don't see really the US been so different from the others. I tend to think more that Britains is - since it has recently recieved a lot of influences from the continental Europe, with which it share a old history - and also because it doesn't share the specificities of newly huge created countries in wild territories that we find in the US, Canada or Australia.
Yeah but I think we have an aversion to *that word* because in English it often carries an ethnic connotation, and we can't help but associate it with that. So those us who are of a Hispanic background or identify with another ethnic group like Uriel who is a Portuguese/German-American, we don't wish to be called "Anglo-Saxons", since to us, that largely applies to people of Anglo descent, which we ourselves are not. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
Yeah but I think we have an aversion to *that word* because in English it often carries an ethnic connotation, and we can't help but associate it with that. So those us who are of a Hispanic background or identify with another ethnic group like Uriel who is a Portuguese/German-American, we don't wish to be called "Anglo-Saxons", since to us, that largely applies to people of Anglo descent, which we ourselves are not.
Yes, I know the reasons of the aversion for "the word". But I think it would be egual with any word wich would include "Anglo/english" with it, because you probably couln't prevent yourself to relate it with the so-called "English" ethnicity (which doesn't even exist in England, since it has never been an homogenous people)
It will be difficult to find a word that express the english language without having any word like "english or Anglo" in it... And I think it would be the same aversion (maybe even worse) if that word contained "british" in it...
It will be difficult to find a word that express the english language without having any word like "english or Anglo" in it... And I think it would be the same aversion (maybe even worse) if that word contained "british" in it...
If the word contained 'British' in it, that would be even worse, because 'British' essentially refers to citizens of the United Kingdom (and anyone else who wishes to identify as 'British' for whatever reason) — it has nothing to do with language.
However, there already are terms to express this concept in English. They include the English-speaking world, and native English speaker, and natively English-speaking.
On the other hand, the term 'Anglo-Saxon' has always had a distinctly different meaning in English from simply 'natively English-speaking'. That is why it is not appropriate to use it in this way in English.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
