"

 ""British Isles"" 

Hi. Thanks for your note; I assure you that the detailed explanations you offered weren't necessary — for somebody who doesn't live in Ireland or in the UK, I think I have an excellent knowledge of the region.

Where I differ from you is in my understanding of the word ""British."" To my ears, ""British Isles"" is an ancient and 'unmarked' (to use some linguistics terminology) phrase; to my ears, the anamalous thing is the use of the adjective ""British"" as though it were the proper adjective for the United Kingdom. It's not; when used as such it's imprecise shorthand. You call the phrase ""British Isles"" Victorian; but of course it is much older than that; and the ancient origins of all this terminology vastly predates the modern political situation (even if we define ""modern"" as meaning ""the past millennium"").

The deeper question, of course, is whether you have a terminological objection or a geographical one— do you object merely to the phrase ""British Isles""; or do you object to the whole notion that these particular islands can be considered together as a set? Because, see, I think it's pretty obvious at a geographical level (far before humans arrived to hurt each other's feelings) that the islands can reasonably be considered a group. But once we consider them as a group, we have to call them something. I don't think any alternative to ""British Isles"" has much currency.

I understand that for some Irish people the phrase rankles; but if they think that the phrase, when used by people from the UK, is full either of arrogance or ignorance or triumphalist glee, I'm quite confident they're mistaken in thinking so. Certainly in the rest of the world, outside those two countries, ""British Isles"" is a phrase used constantly and frequently by well-educated people who are fully aware of the two countries / two islands involved, and who have no emotional investment in their sometimes strained history.  |  talk "