Joe writes: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim May" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:43 PM > Subject: Re: Do you want a French "little" or a Dutch "little"? :)) > > > > H. S. Teoh writes: > > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 05:14:00PM -0400, Nik Taylor wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > Yeah, I think most Americans would consider a 100-year-old building > to > > > > be very old. > > > [snip] > > > > > > Whereas in places like England, people would laugh at you if you > pointed > > > at a 100-year-old building and called it "very old". > > > > > > > Well, a 100-year-old English building isn't as outrageously old as a > > 100-year-old American or Australian building*, but it's still older > > than the buildings most people live and work in. You probably > > wouldn't call it very old, but it'd still be an old building (despite > > the fact that you could find something five times that age not so far > > away, if you looked). Context-dependent. > > > > These days most people have little historical perspective anyway, > > regardless of where they live. At least, so it appears to me. > > > > > > * I don't mean to imply that the age of these buildings literally > > incites outrage in the former colonial nations, of course. > > > > Not really. In fact, there are a nice little row of 400 year old houses near > the town centre. Trust me, most buildings in England are older than you'd > think. My school is 104 years old... Well, perhaps "most" is stretching it, and it varies a lot over the country. There are a lot of Georgian and Victorian terraces, for one thing... But there are a lot of new buildings too. Like I said, it's context dependent.