Comments by "" (@artstation707) on "Sangita Myska eviscerates racist caller saying Rishi Sunak isn't British | LBC" video.

@bulthaosen1169 He is both English and British. He was born and raised in England. That makes him English. This is because the word English uses the suffix - ish. Properly, the word reads as - Like the Angles. Therefore, anyone born and raised like the Angles is English. England is a British nation, so that also makes him British. If the argument is that he's ethnically "Indian" then that's correct too. Is there an English ethnicity? In modern sense, yes there is. But we must remember that words and meanings change over time. A lot of people would simply disbelieve the significance of words taken for granted today.
7
@Man_v_Cars You've experienced those benefits your whole life.
2
@daftwod No, it can't. DNA testing is just as anecdotal as anecdotal evidence. Can you yourself validate and analyze DNA? Nope. You have to take someone's word for it. The only valid evidence we have is genuine historical record.
2
@strongbrew9116 Japan is for all intents and purposes a homogenous society. As far as I know, they're not based upon a supplanted or transplanted nation, and did not take on the identity of an autochthonous population. That's why they were never called Japanish. Furthermore, the suffix -ese can denote "typical of…" a town, region or country. It's not the same as "like." You don't have to disagree with me. It's ok to admit that my logic is sound. After all, it's for your own edification.
2
@Man_v_Cars It all depends on your definition of British. The suffix -ish usually means "-like." From this obvious vantage point, someone calling himself British is claiming to be "like" a predecessor. Do you see where I am going with this?
1
@Man_v_Cars I said, it all depends on your definition of British. I can't engage in a discussion with you, if we have different comprehensions for the words used. Do you not read responses?
1
@curtisjames2329 The entropic destruction of words and meanings, transmitted via the mouths of fools.
1
@adamkennedy7297 She's probably more British than you.
1
@georgetaylor2530 Essential reading: Anacalypsis: An Attempt to Draw aside the Veil... by Godfrey Higgins
1
@adamkennedy7297 It all depends on how you label stuff. Strictly speaking, anyone can be English. If you mean a particular type, perhaps a new term should be introduced. Then again, there are all kinds of existing labels which would suffice, I guess.
1
@strongbrew9116 It's alarming that you speak English without understanding it. -ish 1. a suffix used to form adjectives from nouns, with the sense of “belonging to” (British; Danish; English; Spanish); “after the manner of,” “having the characteristics of,” “like” Agreed? English, therefore means "like the Angles." The Angles were a tribe who left behind for posterity a particular "culture" which is adopted by all who are born and raised in England. If you cannot understand this, then you do not understand the English language.
1
@BeBe-vh4ry Have you read your own comments?
1
@strongbrew9116 We're not talking about tribes; we are discussing nationality, or at least I am. No matter what you offer me, the suffix -ish does not mean of. Even if a variant of it did at some point, again the modern term English is literally "like the Angles," meaning that those of the Angles, have long since moved on to different shores. We can go back and forth if you want. I really don't mind learning new things. BTW, speakers of Old English might have been a little different to what you envision.
1
@hi-ve1cw He's English, unless we should all start calling non-White Englishmen English-ish.
1
@strongbrew9116 You just told me, and I am willing to accept that at some point a tribe existed with the name Angles. Later on, others adopted their legacy, identifying themselves as English, naming the land they occupied: England. There's no sophistry here. I'm telling you directly that anyone born and raised in England today is English, and there's no way around that. That is the nationality of a person born and raised in that country. If you need to distinguish a particular phenotype, or for want of a better word: race perhaps, by all means do so. You're allowed to, even if labels overlap or for some contradict. But you cannot deny the basic nomenclature which defines the nationality of individuals born and raised as part of a nation.
1
@strongbrew9116 Perhaps you glossed over an earlier comment of mine which states that the meanings of words change over time. Since we are here and now in 2022 discussing a multicultural nation, we'll use modern terminologies, thank you very much. Oh, wait! Concerning the fate of the Angles, I'm forced to back track, dispense with modern terminology and address the Old English suffix -isc, which as you stated means "of" or "from" directly. If you are the direct descendant of the Angles, why have you adopted the suffix -ish, as in like? Perhaps you can provide a comprehensive answer. I can, but -- you go first!
1
@strongbrew9116 Just a moment! I directly addressed why I think the Angles disappeared. I was even magnanimous in deferring to your introduction of the old English suffix -isc, which means of or from directly. Because you now accept the modern term: English, using the suffix -ish, meaning merely "like" as opposed to "of" one must conclude that the originals disappeared, no? Or how about this? Maybe they're secretly still around!!!! Please, don't find this condescending or contrary. I respect you and your point of view, but I deliver only logic and for that reason, if you consider this a debate, it might not end the way you hoped.
1
@thebrigadier1496 Which fact? Speak clear!
1
@strongbrew9116 You mean to tell me that all the dictionary entries, in all of those old tomes, and all of those online definitions - a single click away, are wrong? -ish does not mean like? Is that your argument?
1
@strongbrew9116 I'm trying to get you to comprehend the most basic point. Once you do, there can be only agreement. That's the whole point of a discussion.
1
@hi-ve1cw Refer to my comments a few posts back.
1
@jhonnyjhonson2664 I don't want to sound condescending or anything, but it seems a lot of people don't really understand their native tongue.
1
 @jhonnyjhonson2664 You're hard-headed.
1
@jhonnyjhonson2664 Jhonny. Calm yourself! There are many English people who look just like the new PM. I think you just don't understand what people are telling you. There's no need for ignorance here. I'll try again to make things clear. There's ethnicity and there's nationality. Some people use the same label for both. Others use one label for nationality and another for ethnicity. Do you understand now? And no one is crying over any of this. They're just waiting for you to catch up.
1
@jhonnyjhonson2664 English people, who consider themselves a separate race, exist! Ok. We all agree on that. English people who consider themselves ethnically a, b, or c also exist. The word English can mean a race or a nationality, both, or one or the other. It can refer to an accent, a language, a style, an outlook, even an attitude. It is not exclusively the name of a tribe or racial type.
1
@jhonnyjhonson2664 Are you reading my comments? No one is claiming he is ethnically English! Show me where anyone in this thread has said that!!! People have eyes. They can see!!!! Why do you feel the need to make such an obvious argument? We know he's not ethnically English!!!!! But he IS English in terms of his nationality. His native tongue is English. His accent is English. He has an English mentality. He was born and raised in England. He's not Scottish. He's not Irish. He's not from Wales. You could call him British, but that's not accurate enough.
1