AustritariaBoard

Gualta wrote:

Ah! But knowing ye not?
Tis the English uttered new of foul tounges!
It's new English, old English doesn't even resemble this.

Example of old English
Unc ne cunnan englisch.

Korouse wrote:

That's why he said fake old english.

It looked like he was accusing me of using incorrect old English, when really it was incorrect Shakespearean English.

Korouse wrote:

you mean middle english?

No, I mean Shakespearean.

Gualta wrote:

Shakespeare had a unique style that included making up words and expressions, so he gets his own subset. But Shakespearean is actually more closely related to early modern English. Peasant.

I'm a peasant for not knowing exact details about the English language's history?

You're the peasant, Latin is for royals.

Gualta wrote:

Who had the grander empire, pleb?

OOOOOOOOOOOOHHH!!!

Korouse wrote:

There's no such thing as the "English Empire" but ok.

That was so shít

Gualta wrote:

Who had the grander empire, pleb?

England with or without Scotland still didn't do shít in comparison to the impact the Romans had on modern civilisation.

So, despite the fact that England did preside over the largest colonial empire, you're massively overrating it.

Grand adscia wrote:

England with or without Scotland still didn't do shít in comparison to the impact the Romans had on modern civilisation.

So, despite the fact that England did preside over the largest colonial empire, you're massively overrating it.

I think you're forgetting unified India! They are a sprawling economy and an important world competetor. England might not have unified it but it definitely unified because of England.

Igoria wrote:

Romans.

Grand in size sir, grand in size!

Gualta wrote:

I think you're forgetting unified India! They are a sprawling economy and an important world competetor. England might not have unified it but it definitely unified because of England.

*cough*Pakistan-partition*cough*

Grand adscia wrote:

England with or without Scotland still didn't do shít in comparison to the impact the Romans had on modern civilisation.

So, despite the fact that England did preside over the largest colonial empire, you're massively overrating it.

I've got to disagree. Britain always put a lot of effort into infrastructure and setting up lots of good stuff when we owned a place. It's the reason why US was so able to become a super power when they became independent whereas Mexico became a poohole because Spain only raped it of resources and then abandoned it.

Grand Britaria wrote:

Yeah, India's a lovely country. Not full of rape and poverty at all. All the countries we've invaded and conquered are all better off because of us.

If we were still around it'd be better off. But you have to admit it'd be in a worse place if we didn't have it at any point.

Grand Britaria wrote:

Not necessarily. I agree with the point about Spain. We at least settled, Spain mostly turned up and bled everywhere dry. But there are a lot of places that we have left a shthole.

It all depends what you define as 'better off'. It might be better off economically for the country, as in the country has little debt or whatever, but there could be high poverty, etc/whatever.

Only because we left because everyone screamed "INDEPENDENCE". So we left. And then a bunch of gangs took over in Africa and corrupt governments sprang up else where. Now they want white boy back