Re: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe...

In article <20080504.2100.80501004snz$@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 v$af$ppint@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ("ppint. at pplay") wrote:

> - hi; in rasfwr article,
<ddfr-9BB088.22412103052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>      ddfr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 "David Friedman" compounded:
> >              mike weber <fair****tfan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>              Jette <bosslady@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>                      David Friedman wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> Wogs start at Calais. Everyone knows that.
> >>>
> >>>That's "Frogs". The other is a very offensive term for "people with
> >>>a touch of the tar-stick about them".
> >> 
> >>Actually, i forget where the line David quoted appears originally, but
> >>it's pretty much a direct quote of a fairly well-known line, and th[e]
> >>word was definitely "wogs".
> >> 
> >>And, yes, i know what the basi[c] meaning of the term is.
> >
> >And the point of the phrase is that it implies that non-English
speaking 
> >Europeans are more like Arabs and Indians and such than they are like 
> >the British--which is a nice way of describing extreme British 
> >insularity.
> >
> 	- or it might be, were it a correct rendering of a common
> 	british (or english) phrase. which it isn't.

I have no idea how common it is in current use, and to say that it is a 
nice way of describing something isn't equivalent to saying that the 
description is true. But my version of the phrase is indeed the usual 
version, whether or not it is actually in common use in modern day 
Britain. If you don't believe me, try googling. The version with "wogs" 
gets about 985 hits, the version with "frogs" gets one.

> 	  it _may_ be a confusion of two rather similar-sounding
> 	common english (dunno 'bout north of the border) phrases,
> 	one closely modelled on the other, and now perhaps rather
> 	more common than the original [a]:
> 
> 	               "frogs begin at calais"
> 
> 	                         and
> 
> 	               "wogs begin at watford"

"Frogs begin at Calais" is pointless, since everyone already knows 
that--you might as well say "Yanks begin at Boston."
> 
> 
> 	- frogs, krauts, huns, boche, wops, dagos, taffs, micks
> 	and paddies - all of these derogatory terms and more -
> 	are (or in some cases were) common, and *none* of them
> 	were includable, nor included in "wogs" - nor did, nor
> 	do any of them include "wogs", for all that many of the
> 	european nations concerned now have sizeable "coloured
> 	asian" communities - many of them third generation and
> 	beyond natives of europe, as are ours of the uk.

None of those terms included wogs. Which is part of why "wogs begin at 
Calais" makes the point it does--whether that point is true, false, or 
true of some people and false for others. Krauts, micks, etc. don't 
begin at Calais.

-- 
 http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
 Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
 Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now