3 ms·
You don’t see a significant difference between “is mostly” and “a small majority have some trace of”? This is like saying “most English people can speak French
by petesergeant 4y ago
You don’t see a significant difference between “is mostly” and “a small majority have some trace of”?
This is like saying “most English people can speak French” vs “a majority of English people learn some French at school”
- roenxi 4y agoEngland has a long and proud history of being invaded, colonised and overbred by the French. Anglo-Saxon isn't exactly an English pedigree. It isn't French either, but "French" doesn't have an etymology that originated in France. So it is quite possible that the argument of Thai people being Chinese would parallel more strongly; English people don't just speak a bit of French, they have the same ancestors and may as well be French. Hopefully the ethnic Chinese entered Thailand under more rosy circumstances!
- petesergeant 4y ago> has a long and proud history of being invaded, colonised and overbred by the French That’s not really true though unless you take an excessively liberal interpretation of what it means to be French. The Celts weren’t French, the Danes weren’t French, the Romans weren’t French, the Saxons weren’t French, and even the Normans had only been in France for a century before invading, although they picked up the local language pdq. The only people to successfully invade after 1066 were the Dutch, and they would assure you they weren’t French.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago50% is still close to a majority. Perhaps mostly is the wrong word exactly, but it isn’t far off. And I didn’t claim Chinese language was common in either way, just that Chinese ancestry was common, which has huge ramifications to culture. Like Toledo and poles.