More confusion about the meanings of words. Much of this is wrong but the real error is the confusion, not the etymology.
In fact, Britain is a word of Greek origin (not Roman) and for two thousand years was simply the name of a certain island. The adjective also had no more significance than that. The word does indeed derive from the name of a people who lived in the part of that island. It wasn't the Celts, though. It was the Brythons, who later split into the Bretons, the Welsh and the Cornish.
I rather doubt that this was the Brythonic word for the island, still less the Celtic or Pictish term (other nations who lived on the same island at the same time).
It's curious indeed that you claim that the British nation existed two thousand years before the British state but that the English nation could not have existed the English state!
Is there as Asian nation? That word is even older than Britain.
You seem to have read up some more on it now so you are getting a feel for the term Britain being a much longer used one than English and seeing that your earlier assertations were way off base, but you are still making a lot of historical and appelative mistakes.
In fact the term Britain was a
Celtic term not a Greek one (as I said way back in the depths of this thread). The peoples called themselves the Pritani (one possible spelling) meaning Painted.... the Greeks (well, Pytheas anyway) adapated that to be Prettanike. This was all around 400 years before the Romans came.... so once again, we have the original Celtic residents of the British Isles considering themselves to be "Britons" some 800 years before the Engli (Angles arrived) which England would later have it's named derived from.
I'm afraid it's all perfectly clear Abegweit and it is only you who is confused here. Of course I am claiming that there was a Britain and a concept of being British before there was an England and a concept of being English.... this is simply because it is true. Again, Engli Land was a derivative of one of the post-Roman invaders of the British Isles. Prior to that there was no possible way that they could have forseen this conquest and started naming themselves it in advance!
I don't blame your mistakes on this topic, it's not your country and so I am sure that prior to engaging in this debate you knew very little about it. But this and your continued revelations about that which makes Britishness or Scottishness is actually rather appalling in it's total lack of factual knowledge on the subject. Yes, you have opinions - but they're not as important as facts. I'd highly recommend bowing out before you really offend people - for some unknown reason you have turned this thread into a series of personal scuffles - as you aren't getting anywhere on this, you have now taken on the mantle of Scottishness and are trying to repatriatise yourself emotionally to a Scotland of 500 years ago and use that as a platform to criticise other members of a forum. Can you not see where this is going? And how absurd it is?
I suddenly realise that every so-called British person on this thread is, in fact, English.
You don't get to make the call on whether people here are British or English - it is simply none of your business - dont you think it is more absurd that we have a Canadian telling us who we are? Those people who were born in England are legally and rightfully British. It truly highlights your lack of sensitivity to this subject for you to even consider saying the above.
The most charitable answer I can think of is that the English are ashamed of their history. Unfortunately, I can't shake the idea that the real reason is deny me my history. To assimilate the Scots and the Welsh once and for all, just like the Cornish pretty much have been.
This started out as a discussion of history. Sad to say, it has become personal.
It started out as a historical discussion but you turned it into something more like a drama... a revisiting of your ancestral roots. It's all well and good and it would make an interesting discussion elsewhere.... hell, I'd even agree with you on the
historical atrocities of the English against the other residents of the British Isles..... but... this has
nothing to do with the discussion at hand and frankly, all of the above is pure drama queenery. You are not Scottish and I think it would be far more insulting that a person from another country that has neither witnessed nor lived in their ancestor's country should start making claims on their behalf. Really, all that you've done above is shown
your bias, you haven't detracted from the assertions of others.
