# Briton, British, Brit.



## andersxman

I was told that the best choice when wanting to indicate someone with a British passport is "British". "He is British." I am reading an article in "The Guardian" that talks of "Britons". What difference is there between the two words - I figure that the differnence lies first and foremost at a "language register level"


----------



## panjandrum

Briton is a noun. A Briton is a native of Britain.
Britain is a noun too - but it is the island.
British is an adjective.

For convenience, these are not always used with precision.


----------



## petereid

And British is used as a noun "the British are......."


----------



## river

Is it ever spelled "Brittish"?


----------



## petereid

Yes, by those who can't spell.


----------



## river

I just read that in the last paragraph of the _Declaration of Independence_ our Fore-Fathers misspelled the word British by spelling it Brittish. And I thought it was an alternate spelling.


----------



## A90Six

river said:
			
		

> I just read that in the last paragraph of the _Declaration of Independence_ our Fore-Fathers misspelled the word British by spelling it Brittish. And I thought it was an alternate spelling.


That's probably where all the confusion began!


----------



## piotr1980

Hello,

How do we call people living in the UK : British, Britons or Brits ?

Many thanks
Piotr


----------



## Musical Chairs

I couldn't answer this one! I've seen British and Brits (more informal I think) most often, though.


----------



## Brioche

You need to be careful with Brit. 

It's use by a foreigner may be interpreted as disparaging.


----------



## prof d'anglais

It's not just British nationals living in Britain who are referred to as being British _(adjective)_ or Brits (a contraction of British or Britons), British expatriates living abroad are often referred to as either expats or Brits (when a more derogatory form is not being used, such as _“les rosbifs”_ in France).


----------



## Matching Mole

"The British" is preferable from amongst these, unless you want to be punctilious about it only being an adjective (although it could be said to be short for "the British people"), in which case Britons is the only acceptable word. However, Britons is less popular in usage, I think, particularly in the plural, although it is useful in the singular as, since "British" is really an adjective, when used as a noun there is no singular, unless you want to count the abominable word "Britisher".

Brit is very informal and different people have different views on it's acceptability, although it's not as bad as many nicknames for nationalities. It's used by the media a lot as an adjective prefix, e.g. Brit-pop.


----------



## Q-cumber

*Matching Mole*
I see, thanks.


----------



## LV4-26

Matching Mole said:


> However, Britons is less popular in usage, I think, particularly in the plural, [...]


Would you then say that the following sentence sounds formal (or maybe mock-formal)?
I was reduced to attending the tea-dances with the ancient nut-brown Britons (thank God I can't dance) and watching imported videos.
For clarification, the narrator, an Englishman, is in Spain in a hotel for tourists.

I said "mock-formal" because the book it's quoted from is otherwise written in a fairly colloquial style.


----------



## Q-cumber

Hi!
What is the semantic difference between British and English? Which of the terms is more applicable for the people living within the borders of England?


----------



## Mark1978

Q-cumber said:


> Hi!
> What is the semantic difference between British and English? Which of the terms is more applicable for the people living within the borders of England?


 
If a person is English then they are also British. So in strict terms both are equally acceptable. 

Just be careful not to refer to someone as English if you are not sure they live in England, they may be from Scotland, Wales, Ireland etc and you will have just offended them deeply!


----------



## AngelEyes

Do British people feel offended when an American refers to them as *Brits*?


*AngelEyes*


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Keep in mind that the delegates at Philadelphia in 1776 had all grown up thinking of themselves as British. It should also be noted that the spelling "Brittish" in one place of the engrossed parchment copy of the Declaration is clearly a slip by the copyist, as the words "British" and "Britain", spelled with a single "t", are found elsewhere in the same document.


----------



## Consimmer

Personally, I use 'British' to describe anyone from the British Isles, ie. English, Irish, Northern Irish, Scot, Welsh. I am sure though, there are people who would rather be referred to with more precision than 'British'.


----------



## sniffrat

AngelEyes said:


> Do British people feel offended when an American refers to them as *Brits*?
> 
> 
> *AngelEyes*


 

No, AngelEyes. To my mind "Brit" is just short for "British"...no more no less. Many British people (myself included) call themselves Brits.


----------



## ewie

sniffrat said:


> No, AngelEyes. To my mind "Brit" is just short for "British"...no more no less. Many British people (myself included) call themselves Brits.


 
I dunno, Sniffrat, AngelEyes.  My back always stiffens ever so slightly when someone non-British refers to _Brits_.  (It's like when someone who's never been there insults my hometown: it's okay for me to do it because I spent 30,000 miserable years growing up there and so am in a position to criticize it.)  I suspect it's more paranoia on my part than malevolence on the part of the speaker, but I always feel a bit like I'm being sneered at.  I imagine it's the 'palliness' of _Brit_ as opposed to _Briton_.
To go back to the original question: it seems to me that the major difference between _Brit _and _Briton _is that you hear the former a lot more often than the latter.  Which is a shame.  In my opinion


----------



## Loob

"British" - innocuous
"a Briton" - sounds odd: like a throwback to the times when the Britons fought against the Romans
"a Brit": slangy.  Best used only by Brits...


----------



## AngelEyes

Thank you, guys, for all the differing viewpoints. 

I like calling you *Brits*. It's, well...sort of cute.  

So, Ewie, please don't take offense with me. The reason I would hesitate to use *Briton* is because it sounds just like *Britain* and is confusing because of that.

Curiously, I would refer to others in a more specific way, as the Scots/Scotsmen, the Irish/Irishmen, the Welsh/Welshmen, etc. 

Only those born in England would I call *Brits*. Maybe that's just me.

*AngelEyes*


----------



## Thomas1

petereid said:


> And British is used as a noun "the British are......."


What would be its singular?
I don't expect _a British _is used, or is it?


Tom


----------



## Consimmer

A Britisher could be used, but not often if at all these days.


----------



## panjandrum

One Brit, two Brits.

Like many short forms or slang terms, Brit is both a term of affection and a term of abuse.

As ewie and Loob have suggested, British people know when using Brit is acceptable.  Non-natives are very unlikely to get this right, even when they are convinced they are following the lead of natives. Even when they think they are using  Brit as a term of affection they are likely to be considered presumptuous and over-familiar.


----------



## ewie

Thomas1 said:


> What would be its singular?
> I don't expect _a British _is used, or is it?
> 
> Tom


 
No, Tom, the singular of _the British_ is (technically) _a Briton_. But see Loob's and AngelEyes' posts above for possible reasons why this word is in decline.



Consimmer said:


> A Britisher could be used, but not often if at all these days.


 
Can't remember the last time I heard someone use _a Britisher_ ...

'Presumptuous and over-familiar' ~ you've summed up all my waffle in 2 words, P ~ thanks.


----------



## panjandrum

Thanks ewie - I've just thought of two examples that characterise this.

Take yourself to Google and search for brits abroad

Then try searching for brits out

Now, if you are confident that you fully understand which of these your audience will understand, and you are content that this is what you want to say, go ahead.


----------



## Loob

Excellent post, panj (no 17). You've expressed it perfectly.


----------



## AngelEyes

panjandrum said:


> One Brit, two Brits.
> 
> Like many short forms or slang terms, Brit is both a term of affection and a term of abuse.
> 
> As ewie and Loob have suggested, British people know when using Brit is acceptable. Non-natives are very unlikely to get this right, even when they are convinced they are following the lead of natives. Even when they think they are using Brit as a term of affection they are likely to be considered presumptuous and over-familiar.


 
I've noticed this about Britons. (That feels very forced to use that.) They don't like premature over-familiarity. Their comfort level for social intimacy is different than Americans, in general.

So even if I use the term *Brit *while liking it, liking them, liking England and the Queen, it's not going to fly with the natives because I'll come across as an overly-aggressive American.

Okay, then. I won't use it unless I know the person more than a little, or I add a long explanation of affection as I point out why I used it.

I'm wondering if you Britons called me a *Yankee* if I'd be annoyed or bothered. I'd probably smile, at the very least, and not take offense at all, unless you were obnoxious in many other ways other than just referring to me this way.

Once again, our mindset rules what comes out of our mouths and processes through our brains.

And Panj, those links are golden. Thanks, mate.

*AngelEyes*


----------



## panjandrum

Angel, my dear, I would never dream of calling you a Yankee - for more or less the same reason that I advise others not to call me a Brit.


----------



## AngelEyes

Panj,

I'd only draw the line at being called _"...that damn Yankee."_

Even that would just make me laugh.

Thank you, everyone, for this enlightening discussion.

*AngelEyes*


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Hmm.  Here is the first line of a story from today's issue of that source for impeccable, immaculate modern English usage, the _Sun:_


> MORE than 80 per cent of *Brits* think Prince William’s girlfriend Kate Middleton would be a good addition to the Royal Family, a poll showed last night.


Now, I can think of lots of things to call the _Sun,_ but would "presumptuous and over-familiar" be among them?


----------



## panjandrum

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> Hmm.  Here is the first line of a story from today's issue of that source for impeccable, immaculate modern English usage, the _Sun:_
> 
> Now, I can think of lots of things to call the _Sun,_ but would "presumptuous and over-familiar" be among them?


GWB, you seem to be missing the point completely, and no doubt deliberately.  For the Sun to refer to British people as Brits is entirely acceptable.  Please read the explanations given. 

If the New York Times used the same terminology it would be insulting.

I exaggerate the difference to make the point, but surely you can see that something that is used as a term of affection inside the group can be heard as an insult when used by someone outside the group.  There is no doubt, in this context, that the Sun is inside the group.

I'm off to wash my brain free from all consideration of agreeing with the Sun, but please don't let that colour your appreciation of the point.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

panjandrum said:


> GWB, you seem to be missing the point completely, and no doubt deliberately. For the Sun to refer to British people as Brits is entirely acceptable. Please read the explanations given.
> 
> If the New York Times used the same terminology it would be insulting.
> 
> I exaggerate the difference to make the point, but surely you can see that something that is used as a term of affection inside the group can be heard as an insult when used by someone outside the group. There is no doubt, in this context, that the Sun is inside the group.
> 
> I'm off to wash my brain free from all consideration of agreeing with the Sun, but please don't let that colour your appreciation of the point.


Any missing of the point is entirely deliberate, Panj. 

The _Sun_ is not my usual reading material (heck, I am embarassed to admit that I know it exists...) but I happened to stumble upon that article no more than five minutes after reading the latest in this thread. To see that you now find yourself in a language-use group that also contains the editorial staff of the _Sun_ is an unintended Yuletide surprise, which I will try very hard not to smile at.

I also note that if the Grey Lady, aka the _New York Times_, (which uses honorifics to refer to everyone, and so habitually refers to Posh Spice as "Ms. Beckham") used the terminology, it would be less insulting than surprising -- although it must be admitted that it is a surprise (one hopes it is not an insult) one might have had just last week, when the Times had an editorial titled "Bested by the Brits."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/opinion/23sun2.html


----------



## cuchuflete

And so the sun never sets on yet another AE/BE difference.  As noted at length in another WR EO thread, most yanks do not object to being called yanks. 

Caveat: Do not call anyone in Boston or points north a Yankee (as in the NYC baseball team) unless you want your life shortened.  

Interesting contrast: Brits may call other Brits Brits.  Yanks do not typically refer to other Yanks as Yanks.  It's what many Brits call us.  <scratching head in bewilderment smiley>


----------



## jamesjiao

Consimmer said:


> A Britisher could be used, but not often if at all these days.



Maybe it's a word used in Malaysia only?


----------



## Consimmer

jamesjiao said:


> Maybe it's a word used in Malaysia only?



Actually, I was thinking of kids' war comics from Britain circa the late sixties / early seventies where they had "Britisher" used by the German characters.


----------



## marquess

I would say technically the singular of 'The British' is 'A Briton', but in Britain today there is a big difference between those who hold British nationality and those who are original Britons by blood. Both of these are a big deal to a lot of people. Ancient Britons, from whom the name comes, (and my exact historical knowledge here is shaky) were probably Brithonic Celts who shared their language with what are now the Welsh, Cornish, and Bretons on the continent. For certain others who wish to differentiate themselves from political Britain today (some Scots and Irish for instance - even though by blood and language they may have more in common with the Brithonic Celts than the Normans and Saxons), the label 'British' is unwelcome, and for the immigrant population who are proud to have British nationality, but have no Ancient Briton blood, the opposite is true.
Americans (and probably Australians, Canadians etc.) like to talk about people from Great Britain as 'Brits', and most of us know it, and would refer to ourselves as such talking to them, but it is always necessary to be aware of these possible sensitivities and who you are talking to when using the term. Because of this it is easier to generalise about 'the British' in the Geo-political sense, but the term 'Briton' seems to be falling into disuse except in the more specific sense and seems to be being replaced by more tactful phrases like 'British national', 'British person', 'British individual' when talking about persons who inhabit the geo-political region, came from it, and who are proud of it, but if you know better it is always safer to talk about the 'UK inhabitant', 'Scotsman, Englishman, or Irishman' when you go singular.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Redirected from this thread.



Consimmer said:


> Personally, I use 'British' to describe anyone from the British Isles, ie. English, *Irish*, *Northern Irish*



Hmm....

Irish people are most certainly *not* British. Do not refer to us as such or else you will most likely provoke heated outbursts 

For NI, you should check if the person you're referring to considers themselves British or not, otherwise again, such usage will result in upset if not downright outrage 

The word Brit in (southern) Ireland often carries pretty negative connotations attached: "Brits out", "Fucking Brits", "Brits are at it again (usually in reference to hooliganism or loutish behaviour in Spain)" etc. are some examples of where it is employed.

I'd stick with _British _and avoid Brit altogether unless the context is highly informal, comedic, and/or one wishes to offend.


----------



## spatula

AngelEyes said:


> Do British people feel offended when an American refers to them as *Brits*?
> 
> 
> *AngelEyes*


 
Do you think we should, AngelEyes?!


----------



## Wayland

This in itself in the wrong place could cause an awful lot of embarassment or distress.
Define "British Isles". I don't think there is an official ruling.
The word(s) have become so politicised that one is treading on eggshells ( as one so often is in these PC times).
On the face of it "British " appears perfectly neutral but as so many immigrants delight in thus nomenclaturising themselves the indigenous populations retreat into their perceived tribal ethnicities and prefer to call themselves English/Welsh/Scottish/Irish.
I personally hate the "word" _brit_. 

Dear nos 25 and 26.Don't be ashamed of reading lowbrow tabloids.You have to read widely to gauge which way the wind is blowing languagewise,although it has to be said that the London-centric Sun is derided in certain areas by its target audience in the UK and is held in ridicule for these and similar headlines in the past.


Without a wrong how do you judge a right?


----------



## Loob

Hello, Wayland. 

I, for one, am an enormous admirer of _Sun-_headline-writers.

Reverting to topic, I still think, as I said before, that "Brit" is a term best used by Brits.

That said, I'd be happy to see it used by anyone who didn't see it as "cute".


----------



## natkretep

ewie said:


> Can't remember the last time I heard someone use _a Britisher_ ...



I think this is an American term, isn't it?

Also, if you are referring to the Brit Award, you have no choice but to use Brit, do you? But I take Loob's point - it's a term I use with some care.

These are such troublesome terms. I wouldn't use Brit or British or Britain to refer to someone from Eire, because they don't refer to the British Isles but to (Great) Britain.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

natkretep said:


> I think this is an American term, isn't it?


No, it isn't.

Indeed, I would far more expect to hear this in Singapore.


----------



## natkretep

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> No, it isn't.
> 
> Indeed, I would far more expect to hear this in Singapore.



Not even _some _Americans? I don't recall it used by a Singaporean but it being used by some Americans and a Sri Lankan. Not a word I would use myself.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

natkretep said:


> Not even _some _Americans?


 
With 300 million of us, it is likely you will hear _some _Americans saying absolutely anything.  But is "Britisher" a common American usage?  No.


----------



## foxfirebrand

Cuch raised a very salient point about the difference between _Yank_ and _Yankee._  As a son of the South, I agree that the first is inoffensive (once the initial shock of hearing it for the first time wears off), but _Yankee_ is more than offensive, it's fighting words.

I'm not being facetious here.  In my experience northerners (to put it politely) are oblivious to just how demeaning an insult this word is.  The Yankees invaded, conquered and ravaged a large region of the U.S., just as the English did when they consolidated their rule in the UK.  When an ignorant American tourist assumes everyone they meet in that country is "English" and calls an Irishman by that name, I can empathize with the bristling reaction.  All I have to do is imagine that some ignorant British tourist had called me a Yankee.

Speaking of conquests, weren't the people the Romans conquered north of the Channel called Bretons?  Yes, I know that term refers to people from Brittany-- _Bretagne_ in French, to distinguish it from _Grande Bretagne._  Seems to me that at one time they were the same people.

So where did _Briton_ even come from?  I know it goes back as far as Arne.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

natkretep said:


> I think this is an American term, isn't it?
> 
> Also, if you are referring to the Brit Award, you have no choice but to use Brit, do you? But I take Loob's point - it's a term I use with some care.
> 
> These are such troublesome terms. I wouldn't use Brit or British or Britain to refer to someone from Eire, because they don't refer to the British Isles but to (Great) Britain.



Troublesome indeed! Eire means Ireland in the Irish language therefore we reserve such usage for that language, in English the name of the state (and the island) is Ireland - we don't accept the use of the British Isles either, after all (the Republic of) Ireland is not British 



			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Speaking of conquests, weren't the people the Romans conquered north of the Channel called Bretons? Yes, I know that term refers to people from Brittany-- _Bretagne_ in French, to distinguish it from _Grande Bretagne._  Seems to me that at one time they were the same people.



In a way, yes they were. The _Bretons_ fled Britain in the 6th century to escape the Anglo-Saxon invasion and settled in the area of France now known as Brittany. Although Celts, they were different from the native French Celts, the Gauls.


----------



## ewie

Just as a matter of interest, Pedro, what _is_ the official Irish name for the islands that the Brits call _the British Isles_?


----------



## panjandrum

ewie said:


> Just as a matter of interest, Pedro, what _is_ the official Irish name for the islands that the Brits call _the British Isles_?


Please see:
British Isles: Neutral name


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

ewie said:


> Just as a matter of interest, Pedro, what _is_ the official Irish name for the islands that the Brits call _the British Isles_?



Great Britain and Ireland (what Irish geography books use) or the British and Irish Isles are the most frequently used.

Check the thread above for more (it was me who started it after all )


----------



## natkretep

Thanks, Pedro. I wasn't aware of the sensitivities surrounding the term Eire. When I lived in Edinburgh, I heard some reference to _Southern Ireland_ or just _the South_ and presumably this is to be avoided too.

_British Isles_ was the term in my geography textbook from long, long ago. John Oakland prefers British-Irish Isles (_British Civilization: A Student's Dictionary_ (Routledge: London, 2003)).


----------



## panjandrum

For a great deal more discussion on this and related topics, see:

Great Britain and its countries





The term "Brit" 

You'll notice that these threads are in the Cultural Discussions forum 

The issues raised are at least as much cultural as linguistic.


----------



## marquess

natkretep said:


> I think this is an American term, isn't it?
> 
> Also, if you are referring to the Brit Award, you have no choice but to use Brit, do you? But I take Loob's point - it's a term I use with some care.
> 
> These are such troublesome terms. I wouldn't use Brit or British or Britain to refer to someone from Eire, because they don't refer to the British Isles but to (Great) Britain.


 
The only time I remember seeing someone referred to as a Britisher (or Britischer ) was by German soldiers in awful schoolboy comics.


----------



## ry95

Hello..

By way of a brief(ish) comment on this matter, which I find very annoying, may I add something of my own experience on the matter. People from our islands have, for as long as I can remember, been referred to as "the British" and rarely anything else. "Britons" sounds half-acceptable to me, but has connotations of the ancient Britons and is, as such, unlikely in my experience ever to be used. "Brits" is a word which has started to be used only over the past few years in this country by, worryingly, the BBC and other supposedly informed institutions. To my mind, the expression is ALWAYS pejorative. As some indication of its negative associations, I think of how my own teachers would have reacted to such a silly word. And it would have been a very critical reaction indeed.


----------



## JulianStuart

As a US/UK dual citizen currently living in the US, I have to say that the term "Brit" is used quite frequently among the community of, well, Brits, in the US and possibly abroad in general. It is solely a geographic descriptor and has no pejorative associations when used by these people, other than what may be imparted by tone of voice or body language   Some of the same community are from Australia, NZ and S. Africa and all use the term without connotations - "Oh yeah, did you realize Bill's a Brit? He's lost ALL his accent he's been here so long" (The hidden message here is not that there's anything negative about being a Brit, but that he should jolly well have had the decency to hold on to at least some shred of his accent  )


----------



## Kevin Beach

"The British" may be a suitable collective noun, but the only possible singular noun is "Briton", no matter how archaic it may sound. It exists. it does a perfect job. Why not use it?


----------



## Loob

It exists, yes. But it doesn't do a perfect job. That's why we - often - don't use it


----------



## Kevin Beach

Loob said:


> It exists, yes. But it doesn't do a perfect job. That's why we - often - don't use it


Doesn't it? If we want a word that accurately labels a native of Britain, in what way does "Briton" not do the job?
________

(Incidentally, the OP asks about people living in the UK. Strictly, none of his examples apply, because the UK includes Northern Ireland and a large number of people in that province regard themselves as Irish, not British. In fact, they regard all the rest of the Northern Irish as Irish too!)


----------



## Wayland

As has been said above this has been discussed in previous threads.

All these words now have such a political loading.

"British" used to refer an empire that spanned half the world and is no more.People nowadays refer to themselves as Irish/Welsh/Scottish/Celtic/ English/Anglo-Saxon.

We seem to be losing the easy-going stiff-upper-lip self deprecating part of our character and joining in with the current mode of self proclaimed victimhood.

Don't call me a brit and I won't call you a wop, spic, dago, paki, nigger etc.

It is a very sad state of affairs.When the people of the Isles cannot agree amongst themselves what to be called then what hope the foreigner.


----------



## Waylink

piotr1980 said:


> How do we call people living in the UK ... ?



I would call them residents of the UK or UK residents.

Millions of people that live in the UK are not British, Britons or Brits.  

There are lots of other nationalities (both in terms of background and in terms of current citizenship) represented in the UK.  

And there are many people that live in the UK but not in Great Britain (those terms are not synonymous).


----------



## Aidanriley

Is this a politically correct term for an American (or non-British person) to be calling a British person? Is it rude at all?


----------



## ewie

This is a peculiarly thorny subject, Aidan, as you can see from the length of this thread.  To sum up my own viewpoint on this (and save you the trouble of actually _reading_ all this verbiage): it's okay for _us Brits_ to use _Brit_; it's not that foreigners using it is un-PC, it's more that it's over-friendly/familiar, and, it being a rather 'intimate' word (like a nickname only known to family members, e.g.), they sometimes use it in inappropriate circumstances.


----------



## ><FISH'>

On the usage of "Briton/s", I am a bit shocked at people thinking it means "Native" British people (by genetics). It doesn't. It's synonymous with "British". "Briton" is used a lot less, however, and for this reason I think it sounds better than "British".

On the usage of "Brits", I personally find it a bit too informal to take seriously, whether by a British person or a foreigner. I'm not offended by it, it just sounds silly to me. Then again, nobody in this part of the UK uses such a term. It does sound very lazy and pompous.


----------



## ewie

><FISH'> said:


> nobody in this part of the UK uses such a term


Which part of the UK would that be, Fish?  (We're all _brilliant_ linguists but rather rubbish at telepathy ...)


----------



## ><FISH'>

ewie said:


> Which part of the UK would that be, Fish?  (We're all _brilliant_ linguists but rather rubbish at telepathy ...)


North East England.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I share many of the verbal habits explained by the British people in this thread.

I have never heard people talk of_* Britons*_ to refer to British people who lived here less than two thousand years ago.

If I wanted to talk of a British person, I'd say _*a British person*_, or, where I could, I'd say _*an Englishman*_ or _*a Scotsman*_.  Some Scotsmen say that it should be *a Scot*.

I know that some people talk of _*the British*_, but I avoid it, as sounding faintly jingoistic.


----------



## ewie

LV4-26 said:


> Would you then say that the following sentence sounds formal (or maybe mock-formal)?
> I was reduced to attending the tea-dances with the ancient nut-brown Britons (thank God I can't dance) and watching imported videos.
> For clarification, the narrator, an Englishman, is in Spain in a hotel for tourists.
> 
> I said "mock-formal" because the book it's quoted from is otherwise written in a fairly colloquial style.


Firstly, sorry you've had to wait 12½ years for an answer to your question, J-M 
Yes, I'd call that mock-formal.  I like _ancient nut-brown Britons_ ~ I find it wittily alliterative


----------



## Chrisjtrlt

I would tend to call Briton only an inhabitant of Great Britain. 
I would tend to call British any British citizen from Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Man or the Channel Islands.
But maybe I am wrong...


----------



## velisarius

Chrisjtrlt said:


> I would tend to call Briton only an inhabitant of Great Britain.





Thomas Tompion said:


> I have never heard people talk of_* Britons*_ to refer to British people who lived here less than two thousand years ago.




Welcome to the forum, Chrisjtrit. 

Did you read through this interesting thread? You can call us what you like of course, within reason, but we British don't usually call ourselves "Britons".

Edit:  I often see "*Briton*" in newspaper headlines, when *a person of British nationality *has been up to something. They use it to save space.

Among ourselves we may refer to such a person as "a Brit". (I find it difficult in my mind to accept a recent immigrant with a British passport as "a Brit". But that is neither here nor there.) I don't want to repeat what has already been said in this rather long thread.


----------



## Uncle Jack

velisarius said:


> Did you read through this interesting thread? You can call us what you like of course, within reason, but we British don't usually call ourselves "Britons".


True, although I'd happily be called a Briton, but being called a British would raise my hackles. "British" is only an adjective or a plural noun, which is, I suppose, why the word "Brit" arose. However, as others have said, "Brit" is not a word that is freely available to non-Brits to use.

Really, I suppose "British" is no different from "French", linguistically. We can say "the French" and we can say "a French person", but we cannot say "a French", and we might expect French people to be offended if we said "a Frog" (not really an equivalent to "Brit", I agree, but a non-Brit could use "Brit" in a similar manner to how a British person might use "Frog", which is where the problem lies). France does not have an equivalent of "Briton", but it does not seem to cause any problems. Similarly it should not cause any problems to avoid using "Brit" or "Briton".

[Edited to remove reference to now-deleted post.  DonnyB - moderator]


----------

