Jump to content
tanknet.org

Hms Queen Elizabeth


Recommended Posts

For English speakers around the world, the good news has been that it is the new lingua franca. The bad news is that its pronunciation consists of about 27 difference versions from Ireland to E Asia.

And some people could use more or less randomly all those 27 versions...

 

(How many ways of pronouncing "tank" are out there?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

For English speakers around the world, the good news has been that it is the new lingua franca. The bad news is that its pronunciation consists of about 27 difference versions from Ireland to E Asia.

 

And further south, sport.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the homogenizing effect of modern media and personal mobility, American accents could vary as much. To a Southerner, Noo Yawk, Baastan and Joisey were all incomrehensible, and the Yankees went nuts trying to interpret a Suth'n drawwwl.

Until the '50s, there were isolated Appalachian communities whose English was essentially pure Elizabethan.

Edited by shep854
Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the homogenizing effect of modern media and personal mobility, American accents could vary as much. To a Southerner, Noo Yawk, Baastan and Joisey were all incomrehensible, and the Yankees went nuts trying to interpret a Suth'n drawwwl.

Until the '50s, there were isolated Appalachian communities whose English was essentially pure Elizabethan.

 

 

 

Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America by David Hackett Fischer

 

and ​http://www.rcs.k12.va.us/wbhs/library/AppalachianDialect.pdf

Edited by rmgill
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Doug, but Diggers and Kiwis fall under the overall umbrella of Anglos. The real problem areas are Indian subcontinent, SE Asia, E Asia and Africa [the Irish remain alone too, but unchanged as problem areas].

 

Granted, I used to worry about not understanding the English, but then found out that they don't understand each other either [cf. E Anglia vs Midlands, a distance of what, a few 100 Km? - GMAFB]; ditto for what T19 said.

 

Damn, jack that thread!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Charles

Sorry, Doug, but Diggers and Kiwis fall under the overall umbrella of Anglos. The real problem areas are Indian subcontinent, SE Asia, E Asia and Africa [the Irish remain alone too, but unchanged as problem areas].

 

Granted, I used to worry about not understanding the English, but then found out that they don't understand each other either [cf. E Anglia vs Midlands, a distance of what, a few 100 Km? - GMAFB]; ditto for what T19 said.

 

Damn, jack that thread!

Luxury, try understanding a weegy(Glaswegan) and a dhoric(Aberdonian) having an argument :o . I open my trap and speak The Queens English; wind up having to leg it before the two Scots turn on me :blink: . BTT.

 

Charles

Link to post
Share on other sites

Granted, I used to worry about not understanding the English, but then found out that they don't understand each other either [cf. E Anglia vs Midlands, a distance of what, a few 100 Km? - GMAFB]; ditto for what T19 said.

What was the saying?

 

"In England 100 miles are a long way. In the US 100 years are a long time."

 

Or something along these lines. Dialects need time and confinement to an area or group to develop. And mobility was maybe the next village or town for most people in ages past. So nearly isolation from other groups of speakers.

 

Damn, jack that thread!

Always. ¡THIS IS TANK-NET! ;)

 

 

 

The leveling of dialects can not only attributed to modern media, but also the higher mobility of people moving around the country. If only few stay in one place for generations, how should a local dialect develop or survive if the people are constantly mixed anew?

 

 

In Germany dialects received a serious blow when the refugees from the eastern areas had to be integrated and the dialects from Silesia, east prussia etc literally die with their last speakers and their children pretty much defaulted to standard german as used in writing official documents or in the media. With many germans moving from the former DDR to the south west for jobs there it mixed up dialects even more and to communicate with each other both default to standard german too. (or what they believe standard german is ;)) Letting dialects fall into disuse even more.

 

In spoken language switzerland has since the 1930ies a strong tendency towards dialect to differentiate from the germans. So "fashion" and self confidence seem to play a role if dialects survive or not, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Movement can also mean preservation. According to my best friend, proper old Ukrainian is still spoken in Canada as kitchen language where some Ukrainains moved nearly 100 years ago, whereas in Ukraine, it's been moderated by the past ~100 years of Russian Rule. Sadly that Ukrainain in Canada is likely nearly extinct now too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to the HMS QE:

 

If the Royal Navy is having problems with an air wing that they cannot find for the 60,000t HMS QE, you can imagine the difficulties the Royal Australian Navy is having with our present government's apparent insistence on having the Camberra class LHD (27,000t) of being able to handle a small airwing of F-35 aircraft, on a ship too small to properly handle them, with no appropriate storage for aviation fuel or stores, and no maintance facilities, no AEW ortrained naval aircrew.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra-class_landing_helicopter_dock

 

Harriers / Sea Harriers may have been feasible at a much earlier time, but F-35s now, maybe six of them.... why bother?

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I looked at Wiki I notices something interesting.

 

The ship will have a normal average crew of about 670. It will have 67 'catering staff'. One cook for every ten crew members...

 

Now, the ship can accomodate up to 1400 crew / aircrew / (Royal) Marines but that is still a lot of cooks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I looked at Wiki I notices something interesting.

 

The ship will have a normal average crew of about 670. It will have 67 'catering staff'. One cook for every ten crew members...

 

Now, the ship can accomodate up to 1400 crew / aircrew / (Royal) Marines but that is still a lot of cooks.

They have other jobs. For example, one of my cousins was a navy cook. He spent a lot of time on mine watch in the Persian Gulf in January 1991 & February 1991, & after he retired (as a CPO, which I think is about as high as you can go in that line), got a job in fire safety, based on his RN training in that role.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Charles

I just want to know how many they have looking after the Wine Cellar. :)

Oh dear God, its the Port old bean, the port. :P .

BTT.

 

I believe the lack of trained crew for not just the RN's future F-35 airwings, but for simply manning vessels of the QE's size will hamper us for well into the 2020's.

 

Charles

Link to post
Share on other sites

you can imagine the difficulties the Royal Australian Navy is having with our present government's apparent insistence on having the Camberra class LHD (27,000t) of being able to handle a small airwing of F-35 aircraft, on a ship too small to properly handle them, with no appropriate storage for aviation fuel or stores, and no maintance facilities,

I am struggling to imagine. Aren't those capabilities part of the design of the Spanish ship on which the Australian LHDs are based, in order to support its secondary role as a training carrier? Doesn't it have tanks for aviation fuel to support helicopter operations and maintenance spaces, and workshops for the same? And weapon magazines for the embarked land forces?

 

Does Australia now have a stated requirement for acquisition of F-35B?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 67 cooks and stewards might include the portion contributed by the embarked troops/aviation det.

 

Aviation capable ships have fueling and limited avionics/servicing, but the aviation ordnance/servicing would be the most troublesome. If it has been designed for, then all right; after all it has the displacement of the original Essex Class CV of 1940.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I considered the possibility that the 67 included embarked enhancements, but in the context of the source of the number, I think it is unlikely.

 

Embarkations usually do bring a steward or two and perhaps a cook, but not in proportion to the size of the embarking unit. The proportion of caterers in the ship's complement of a carrier or amphibious ship therefore has to be higher than on other types in order to absorb the increased workload of embarkations. 10% actually seems quite modest. I had SoCs for auxiliaries on hand for comparison and the proportion of cooks and stewards in the crew of those is typically 10-15%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...