Back in Time for Dinner/the Weekend/School

[Daisy]

Lettuce and gravy! No thanks.

[Courtenay]

Don't you Aussies have peas with your fish and chips then?

No, we don't. What use are peas in a meal that's meant to be eaten with your fingers, preferably down by the beach on a hot summer's evening?

[Moonraker]

Don't Aussies have knives and forks?

Edit: Just a thought. Is it racist to call Australians, Aussies? I know people from other countries get upset if their nationality is abbreviated. If so, I apologise. Of course, some nationalities call us Poms (!) or Brits....

[Julie2owlsdene]

When we've had fish, chips and peas to take out we get a nice little fork given to us.

Mind you you're taking your life in your hands eating them on a Cornish beach because of the 'seagulls'!

[Moonraker]

And Morgan.....

[Julie2owlsdene]

Quite!

[Courtenay]

Don't Aussies have knives and forks?

Yes. Just not when eating fish and chips.

Edit: Just a thought. Is it racist to call Australians, Aussies? I know people from other countries get upset if their nationality is abbreviated.

Not at all! We call ourselves that. And yes, we call British people Poms. But it's usually meant in a cheekily affectionate way, not a deliberately offensive one, don't worry. I wouldn't use that term here in the UK, mind you - even though I hear tell Brits are famous for putting up with all kinds of abuse without complaining.

[Anita Bensoussane]

I know people from other countries get upset if their nationality is abbreviated.

I think that's only the case if the term has been hurled at people in a malicious manner, e.g. the shortened form of 'Pakistani'. I also read somewhere that if you're shortening 'Scottish', it's nowadays considered pejorative to shorten it to 'Scotch' and you should say 'Scots' instead. I'm not sure whether that view is widely held, or what the reason is.

[Moonraker]

Oh, most definitely. I am always saddened when people from other countries can't laugh at themselves. I never take offence. Seeing as we've buried a king today, I am in a good mood!

[Moonraker]

I know people from other countries get upset if their nationality is abbreviated.

I think that's only the case if the term has been hurled at people in a malicious manner, e.g. the shortened form of 'Pakistani'. I also read somewhere that if you're shortening 'Scottish', it's nowadays considered pejorative to shorten it to 'Scotch' and you should say 'Scots' instead. I'm not sure whether that view is widely held, or what the reason is.

Yes, I have been careful for the past 40 years never to refer to Scots as Scotch, as I believed this to be a drink, not a nationality. Seems I was wrong! Personally, I don't give a jot if others call us Brits by derogatory terms, but then, we are one of the most tolerant of all nationalities. As you say, or at least refer, the term 'Pakis' is now deemed unacceptable - and no race really should be ridiculed. Sorry, but I have no idea what pejorative means!

[Daisy]

Like you Nigel, I have been aware for what seems like always that one should refer to the Scottish people as Scots, and never Scotch. I have no idea why this should be though.

[sixret]

There are two words mentioned above that have very dirty meaning in M language!

[Julie2owlsdene]

I always thought that Scotch, was a whiskey too, and the Scottish people were Scots. Maybe Fiona will have to enlighten us on this.

[Anita Bensoussane]

I found some interesting information on the topic here:

http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2010/ ... ttish.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This also gives us a chance to write about the three adjectives “Scot,” “Scotch,” and “Scottish,” a subject that “is somewhat unsettled,” in the understated words of the Oxford English Dictionary.

In Old English, the language of the Anglo-Saxons, the adjective was Scyttisc or Scottisc. In Middle English, about 1100 to 1500, it was written all sorts of ways (Scottysc, Scottisc, Scottissh, etc.), often depending on where you lived.

In the 14th and 15th centuries, for example, it was pronounced like “Scottish” (with various spellings) in the south of England, and “Scottis” in the north as well as in Scotland.

Writers in England began contracting “Scottish” to “Scotch” in the late 16th century, while writers in Scotland began shortening “Scottis” to “Scots” in the early 18th century.

But language is a messy business, and some Scottish writers, notably Robert Burns (1759-96) and Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832), regularly used “Scotch” as an adjective.

Since the mid-19th century, the OED says, there has been “a growing tendency” in Scotland to abandon the adjective “Scotch” in favor of “Scottish” or “Scots.”

Why? Perhaps because “Scotch,” with its English roots, had come to be viewed in the 19th century as merely an Anglicized version of the word “Scots.”

In England, “Scotch” was the “the prevailing form” from the late 17th century until the 19th century, according the OED, though “Scottish” was used in more formal writing.

But in the 20th century, the OED adds, the word “Scotch” fell “into disuse in England as well as in Scotland.”

Nevertheless, the adjective “Scotch” survives in phrases like “Scotch whisky,” “Scotch pine,” “Scotch broth,” and so on.

So which adjective should a writer use today? A usage note in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) offers some helpful advice:

“In the interest of civility, forms involving Scotch are best avoided in reference to people; designations formed with Scots are most common (Scot, Scotsman, or Scotswoman), but those involving the full form Scottish are sometimes found in more formal contexts.”

[Fiona1986]

Don't worry the expert's arrived . I'm kidding. I've rarely if ever heard/seen people use Scotch to describe a person or people but I know that it does happen. I'm only aware of the idea that Scotch is a drink not a nationality idea rather than anything to do with it being Anglicised, but as I say I've not really come across it being used.