She loves the English culture and the English language, she is an anglophile.

"Ted loved the English. You could even say that he was an anglophile."

As he was an Anglophile he was really looking forward to his trip to London.

Anglophile

anglophile

An Anglophile.

Americophile

Anglophile

Bibliophile, franklophile, anglophile, ect.

"Franklophile" ?

"ect" ?

Glory be!

Francophile

etc

xenophile/oenophile/bibliophile/Anglophile/audiophile

spelling-things-properly-phile

Yankophile? No, seriously it's Americophile.

The best word I can think of is anglophile.

Maybe you are refering to "luge" but is pronounced "louge" to an anglophile ear.

The author brings out the anglophile side of Sir Mohan Lal's character by highlighting his admiration for British customs, lifestyle, and language. Through his actions and interactions, Sir Mohan Lal is portrayed as someone who embraces and adopts British culture, which sets him apart from others in his community. This anglophile aspect of his character helps to illustrate the complexity and conflicting influences that shape his identity.

An Anglophiliac is another name for an Anglophile, a person who lives the country, culture, or people of England or Britain.

Hollandophile or nederlandophile

Well, the Latin name for Ireland is Hibernian, so presumably you would be called a Hibernophile.

Francophile (who likes the French), anglophile (who likes the English), cinéphile (who likes to go to the cinema),

A Germanophile is someone who loves all things German. A similar identity would be a francophile, an anglophile, et cetera.

Anglophile audiophile hydrophile necrophile no file oenophyle paedophile thermophile xerophile

also might be pronounced "if-I-yil" - basophile bibliophile discophile xenophile zoophile

A person who remains true to their own country is a patriot. Someone who loves Britain and all things British would be an Anglophile - regardless of their nationality.

The Jay's treaty of 1794 provoked Jeffersonian outrage since they feared that so notorious a Federalist and Anglophile would sell out his country.

Well, a person fond of English customs is called an anglophile. So if it is British royalty the term could be used.

It depends what culture, you use that word and add a suffix "phile" at the end. e.g. Germanophile, if its's English it would be Anglophile and French is Francophile...

He actually was the government's leading Anglophile. He thought relations with Britain would be best for the economy, because Britain exported common wares that people needed - fabrics, silverware, and the like. It was one of his sorest points with Jefferson, who favored France. Hamilton thought it was impractical to have ties to France, who's wares were things the common person didn't buy/

Vladimir Nabokov grew up during a time prior to the Russian Revolution when English, and other western European culture were admired and emulated. Nabokov has stated that he learned English before he learned Russian. In subsequent years, leadership, and policy changes made it impossible for a family to develop such anglophile leanings in Russia.

FDR was considered an Anglophile and did like the English and wanted to support them and protect them from nazi aggression. But he won a campaign promising that he would remain out of the war. There is some conflict over if he really wanted to enter the war and was scheming ways to do so but Pearl Harbor ended any debate and sent American war

I consider it to be someone who likes Christ or Christianity, as opposed to necessarily being a "Christian". Such a person finds merit, to a greater or lesser amount, in Christianity without identifying him or herself with sanctimonious, so-called "Christians".

I consider it, as opposed to the anti-Christian bigot above me, to be what anyone who's educated would know it to be. The Greek 'phile' means 'lover'. So "Christophile" simply means Christ-lover.

Technically the ignorant individual above makes a point--you can be a Christophile and not be a Christian, or be a Christian and not a Christophile.

Other examples: anglophile, audiophile, bibliophile, logophile, pedophile.

Where in the world did you ever get the impression that Benjamin Franklin was willing to "fight" for freedom from England? Franklin was an Anglophile who clearly loved England, France, and Continental ways. As far as revolution goes, it is clear that Dr. Franklin preferred American independence, but it is equally clear that he remained a "fence sitter" until the outcome of the dispute took a "colonial" turn.

Many would say it was joan of arc inspiring the men at Orleans to fight out of the English seige. However, the biggest turning point was when Henry VI bacame king. He was a naive, weak willed king who got bullied into making stupid decisions by parties from both sides.

Before Henry VI's reign English victory never seemed in doubt, during his reign even the biggest Anglophile's in Normandy could see the writing on the wall and started changing sides in droves.

The prefix "phil-" comes from the Greek word "philos," meaning love or fondness. When it is used as a prefix, it usually indicates a strong affinity or inclination toward something. For example, "philanthropy" means a love for humanity, and "philosophy" means a love of wisdom.

Well, the answer rather depends on whether or not you are English or American. As a Texan, who is also a bit of an Anglophile, I will answer it both ways.

If you are American, then by 'biscuits' you must mean our good-ole baking-soda style biscuits that we like to slather butter, jelly or gravy on. Then the answer would be a 'scone' which is from Great Britain and Ireland and the like. They come in a variety of flavors like plain, blueberry, cranberry, cinnamon, etc. They, too, get slathered with jams and jellies and a must is clotted cream, which is a sinfully lushious cream with a heavy weight behind it.

Now, if you're an Englishman (or woman), then the answer would be 'cookies'. They come in too numerous to mention flavors, but our favorites would probably be chocolate chip or a plain butter, but again, a bunch of flavors out there and most cookies are round and flat, but some are puffy and light. Pretty much all are yummy! And, as a note, 'crackers' or 'saltines' are our salty biscuits. Oh, and Americans: if you ask for a 'cracker' over there, you'll get something entirely different! :)

Hope that helps!

R. G.

Yes and no.

The Republicans had been the party of the common people until Teddy Roosevelt took office. He changed the party into an Anglophile imperial party, much like the Democrats had long been. So both parties became tools of the ruling class. His cousin, Franklin Roosevelt later changed the Democratic Party into a party of the common people, so the parties switched roles by the 1930s.

So the Republicans had promoted policies up to 1901 and somewhat beyond that improved the economy tremendously, starting with Lincoln's administration. Up until Lincoln, the economy had been declining badly for several decades. Some of the policies that contributed to economic prosperity were: 1. high import tariffs, which made it profitable for domestic businesses to pursue major manufacturing with mass production, which lowered prices; 2. low or no taxes on American citizens; 3. large-scale infrastructure projects, like the intercontinental railroad, which greatly increased the size of the market place and made improved conditions for trade across the country.

Such policies made the U.S. the world's most prosperous nation up until at least the early 1970s. Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy had promoted such policies, but most other administrations since 1901 rolled back such policies in favor of policies promoted by the British ruling class.

The boom of the 1920s was partly a result of the previous prosperity policies and partly due to market manipulation by the Anglophile Wall Street, which promoted speculation, building a large economic bubble, which began to burst in 1929. Similar bubbles have been building since the 1970s, which are now bursting.

Answer: They weren't important at all. Even today people exaggerate the influence that the federal government has over the economy and in the 1920's it had far less power and financial influence than it does now. Besides that, in the 1920's the presidency was comparatively less important in the government than it is now. Congress tended to shape legislation and policy with much less input from the president than is common now.

The first recorded use of the name was in 897, when it was used to describe the southern part of the country which had been occupied by the Angles from Denmark. (ie Angleland). The use of the name gradually spread (and had changed to England by 1500) to describe the whole country.

Line numbers are not very helpful because they are different from edition to edition of the play. If what you mean is, "Could the play Macbeth end at the moment Macduff cuts off Macbeth's head?", then, the answer is, yes it could. Producers of Shakespearean productions frequently cut lines and passages from the plays to get the running time down to something a modern audience can put up with. The play might well end at that point, and leave out Macduff's report to Malcolm, his line "The time is free", hailing Malcolm king of Scotland, Malcolm's creation of English earls instead of Scottish thanes, and his invitation to come to his coronation.

Artistically, the play may not feel as satisfying if you end with a fade to black when Macduff's sword hacks off Macbeth's head. Macduff needs to underline the fact that Macbeth is dead and his reign of terror is over. At the very least, Macduff must say "Behold where stands the usurper's cursed head. The time is free!"

If you end the play there, you allow the audience to forget about the question, "What happens next?" Having Malcolm hailed as king reminds the audience of the weakness of his character, and that in some ways he may prove a worse king than Macbeth (or, if his character is built up, would reinforce the relief felt that Macbeth is dead). The creation of earls is important in a reading of the play that sees Malcolm as an English-backed Anglophile bent on destroying the indigenous Scottish customs.

But if you marginalize the character of Malcolm throughout the play, it would be consistent to end the play with "the time is free".

No, very much NOT- they thought that as long as Britain remained isolated without US support, the chances of The Third Reich remaining were much greater. They gave up on the idea of a land invasion of Britain after the Battle of Britain in 1940, when their plans for an air and seaborne assault codenamed 'Operation Sealion' were shelved, but they still felt that if Britain could not be conquered, it could at least remain an isolated entity. The hope was that via a combination of espionage and internal British dissent, a Nazi-friendly British Government could be installed that would sign a peace treaty with Germany and become like Quisling's Norway or Unoccupied France under Marshal Petain. This would have involved the overthrow of the British Government under Churchill by British Nazi sympathisers and it's replacement by a Fascist regime headed by someone like the UK Fascist leader Oswald Moseley, and the replacement of King George VI with the abdicated Edward VIII, who by then was living in exile in France (Edward was known to admire the Nazis, although this was before he knew about The Holocaust). There was some sympathy for the Nazis by the Irish, who although officially neutral, and generally tacitly against Hitler, did include a sizeable proportion of the population who wanted to see Britain - or at least England - broken as a dominant power, and some Irish and also a few Welsh people were employed by Germany as secret agents.

But President Franklin D.Roosevelt was fervently Anglophile, and supported the UK financially and with armaments against Hitler. He was itching for an excuse to declare war on Nazi Germany, but could not do so without the US being seen as the aggressor. Pearl Harbour in 1941 gave him that excuse- Japan and Germany were bound by treaty whereby any attack upon one was regarded as an attack upon the other, so in declaring war against Japan, the USA was by extension declaring war on the US as well.

Two highly significant events for American history occurred in the first week of September. First, on Sept. 3, 1783, the Treaty of Paris was signed, which formalized the end of the American Revolutionary War. Second, on Sept. 6, 1901, President William McKinley was shot and killed by an assassin. Immediately sworn in to take over his office was Vice President Theodore Roosevelt, who acted to change the policies of the United States, fundamentally for the worse.

In one sense, the Treaty of Paris-signed by Great Britain, France, and the United States-was a formality. The British Army had been defeated nearly two years earlier, at Yorktown, Virginia, and had acknowledged as much. But the British Empire had by no means reconciled itself to losing its former American colonies, which, at the end of hostilities, found themselves bankrupt, at the mercy of Indian tribes, and virtually at each other's throats over issues of trade and land.

All the more reason that a recognition of American sovereignty, by treaty, was necessary. This was the accomplishment of a team, led by America's foremost citizen Benjamin Franklin, and including John Adams, who found themselves face-to-face with Britain's Lord Shelburne. Shelburne has enjoyed a totally unwarranted reputation as being "pro-American." In reality, he was simply more sophisticated than the ham-handed British Prime Ministers, preferring to wield the weapon of "free trade" against both the new United States, and France, rather than employ outright military means. He fought to have the Parliament accept the peace, in order to fight another day.

As for the Americans, the achievement of the treaty simply posed more starkly the question of how they were going to organize their economy and government, in order to procure a prosperous future for themselves, and their posterity.

In contrast, the shooting of President McKinley in 1901 marked a dramatic shift downward for the world's premier republic.

William McKinley of Ohio, a former Union military officer, was elected to the Presidency in 1896 on a platform of high wages and defiance of British free-trade doctrines. While he had been manipulated into waging the Spanish-American War, McKinley was still intent upon pursuing peace, reciprocity, and mutual industrial development with the nations of the Western Hemisphere. McKinley was no imperialist.

Not so his Vice Presidential running mate in the 1900 election. Rabid Anglophile Teddy Roosevelt had been effectively forced onto to the Republican ticket, and he was, therefore, in place at the crucial time. That time came on Sept. 6, 1901, when the anarchist Leon Czolgosz, a self-professed disciple of Emma Goldmann, shot McKinley. The President died a few days later.

As President, Teddy Roosevelt blatantly attacked and intimidated the nations of Ibero-America, broke up the U.S. alliances with Japan, Russia, and Germany, and reversed the economic policy which had been initiated by President Abraham Lincoln. Roosevelt closed the American West to settlement, cancelled Lincoln's economic development measures, and turned over national financial power to the British banking cartel of Rothschild and Morgan. Teddy Roosevelt's "speak softly and carry a big stick" slogan came to reflect U.S. foreign policy-as it would until Franklin Delano Roosevelt took over in 1932.

The problem stems from their ancestery. Being conquered by the Romans and subsequently made civilized by their conquerors, whereas previously they had been barbarians. they felt that they now should do the same to other peoples. So they took it upon themselves to start colonies in the late 19th century.

Unfortunately for them and fortunately for the colonies this didn't quite work out. New Guinea would have been hundreds of times worse than what the Belgians did in the congo should they have succeeded. This failure, however, left the kraut nation, with a huge chip on their shoulder. You average Hun, perhaps called Fritz now had this urge to attack with whatever means possible anyone who pointed out any of their shortcomings. And do they have many shortcomings. Apart from not being able to accept any other cultures, they feel an urge to point any small thing out that doesn't conform to their sense of normality.

Also they take attack people in a evil way. Look at what they do to their former employees that point out that some of the stuff they do isn't legal let alone morally right:

See how they retaliate unjustly here derspreebogen.home.blog/ and 5d6f4b4be97c312a5dc07e63. So what is the solution? Next time you see a Kraut, a Hun, Fritz or a gummihal ignore them like an infection disease. The world will be a better place.

No, strangely enough, they did not despise the British. The major problem at the time was communication, whilst America sent letters of peace across the Atlantic, Britain was sending 2,000 soldiers. America really wanted representation. The British were taxing America but refusing them the right to have a say in the political system. Adams resented systems of class and privilege and so resented the British system, but all in all the Founding Fathers did feel some loyalty towards the Crown.

The French despised the British more than Americans hence one reason why when Americans travelled to Paris 4 times begging for assistance against the British, the French agreed and were semi - secretly involved from the get - go supplying over 90% of gunpowder stocks in 1776, also artillery troops and a navy Americans didn't have one)...then later the Spanish also assisted America followed by the Dutch. So..although the Americans disliked the taxation policy that the British forced upon them they didn't despise them to the degree that the French did.

I too agree with the first contributor about not hating the British. Most of what I've learned concerning the relationship was good. Even George Washington originally wanted to be promoted and accepted by his British officers. I think that Britain's handling of their friendship ended in disaster.

It is safe to say that many of the FF did indeed despise the British. If not early on then certainly after the war began and some atrocities set in. An example would be the treatment of P.O.W's by the British on rotting prison boats sitting stagnant in the harbor.

To say that the FF had no ill feelings toward the British is simply ridiculous. Check out some of Patrick Henry or Tom Paine's quotes if you don't believe me.

Madison had no love lost for the Brits himself and backed their mortal enemy the French.

So the prior persons answer is false.

Hope that helped.

The founding fathers did not behave or act with any hostility to Britain similarly British soldiers saw the settlers, rightly, as their kith and kin. However when the blood started flowing and atrocities from both sides were discovered animosity and hatred set in.

Wars do tend to change peoples feelings toward another nation. Just think of Iraq or Vietnam. Before the wars the American people genuinely cared about the welfare of the (reportedly) downtrodden Iraqis and Vietnamese, halfway through no one cares how many innocent people die as long as they aren't American.

In 200 years time Iraq and Vietnam will celebrate how they fought and won Independence from an all powerful America, how they overcame atrocities etc

Cut and paste American Independence for every nations Independence

By 1775 most colonial Americans were so far removed from their British counterparts that they felt very little commonality with them. I don't think that their feelings could properly be described as "hostility" as much perhaps, as "resentment." Colonial Americans had been ruling themselves for so long with what amounted to indifference by England that when the Crown tried to tighten the reins, they understandably balked. The "catalyst" that propelled the Revolution was, quite simply "capitalism." The colonists had discovered that unlike anywhere else in the world, this land allowed the "individual" to succeed, not the company, or the crown, and they liked being "somebody" for a change. They just were not about to give that up. It was worth fighting for.

Not all of the Founding Fathers hated the British. Hamilton, as an Anglophile, admired them and attempted to install a similar government in America after the war was over. People like John Adams felt much stronger about breaking free from the crown, and knew from April 19, 1775 that the only end to the situation would be a revolution. However, in the beginning most others wanted to reconcile. The first "American" flag was the Union Jack with 13 stripes to represent the desire to rejoin the English empire. Many wanted to fight only a long as was needed to do gain equal rights with British citizens living in England. Up until 1778 the British could have given in to certain American requests and stopped the war. The breaking point was when British soldiers employed the American Indians to kill "Rebels" and rebel sympathizers, including women and children. The final straw was the way the American press portrayed the cruelty of British soldiers most notably Banester Tarleton. There were always colonists who wanted to break free from England but once England decided to tax the colonies to pay for the Seven Years War and the price of keeping a standing army in America the notion became much more popular. However, after the above incidents with the Indians and Tarleton there was no going back.

Just to add on to what people have already said, Thomas Jefferson, while not totally against the British, was a Francophile, or in other words loved France. Therefore, he more wanted a separation from the British, and a permanent alliance with the French.

While it is correct to say that the move away from reconciling with the British towards independence was a gradual one. The previous answer that mentions the atrocities of Banistre Tarleton as a catalyst is incorrect, as his actions had nothing to do with changing the minds of the average citizen or members of the Continental Congress. Tarleton made his name at the battle of Waxhaws which took place in 1780, well after all had given up on the idea the idea of reconciliation. Tarleton was known to be a vicious fighter before Waxhaws but not until that battle were his actions brought front and center for the public to see.

The Language Movement of Pakistan!

Preservation of Pakistan's native languages against the domination of English and Urdu

Language is the most important aspect of culture. It is the dominant feature in determining nationality or ethnicity. It is the binding force that unites a people, and makes them distinct from others. Language represents a people's heritage and identity. However, the imposition of Urdu as the national language of Pakistan has been disastrous to the country.

Urdu language evolved during the declining period of Muslim rule in South Asia. But Persian (Farsi) always remained the official language of South-central Asia (i.e. Pakistan region) during the Muslim rule. Turkic and Arabic languages were also popular, Turkic language being the mother-tongue of many among the ruling elite, and Arabic language learnt for religious or scholarly purposes. The base of most Southern Asian Muslim empires was in North India, particularly in Delhi and surrounding areas. With the passage of time, due to the constant interaction between the ruled Khari-boli-speaking north Indian Hindu masses and the ruling Persian-Turkic-speaking Muslim elite, a new language slowly evolved called Hindustani, whose Persianized form came to be known as Urdu. Although, Hindustani/Urdu language eventually became popular, it was limited to parts of north India (Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, etc.) and never became the official language during Muslim rule. Other regions continued their native languages such as Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashto, Kashmiri, Seraiki, Baluchi, etc. having nothing to do with Urdu, while Persian was the official language throughout the Muslim Empire.

Even in the case of north India, the official language continued as Persian down to the days of the last Mughal emperor. "Persian remained the official language of every Muslim state in India and the ambition to emulate Persian classics was nowhere given up, the influx of Persian poets being a compulsion for the study of Persian" (Indian Muslims, by M. Mujeeb). It was only later on, from the advent of the British that north Indian Muslims adopted Urdu and developed an attachment for it. "During the first centuries of its existence, Urdu literature was entirely poetical. Prose Urdu owes its origin to the British occupation of India and to the need of text books for the College of Fort William. The Hindi form of Hindustani was invented at the same time by the teachers at the College. It was intended for the use of Hindus and was derived from Urdu by ejecting all words of Arabic and Persian birth, and substituting in their place words borrowed or derived from the indigenous Sanskrit" (A Study of History, Vol. V, by AJ Toynbee). Also, the Perso-Arabic script of Urdu and Devangari script of Hindi are other significant differences between the two.

Despite these differences, Urdu and Hindi languages are extremely similar to each other, mostly composed of native north Indian linguistic elements. Having a common origin, both languages are intelligible to each other, and overwhelmingly share the same syntax, vowels, vocabulary, etc. It would be safe to say that both Hindi and Urdu are almost the same language, the minor differences being somewhat comparable to the Persianized Azeri language of Iran with the Russianized Azeri language of Azerbaijan. Leaving aside the undoubtedly close relationship between Hindi and Urdu, the fact remains that Urdu is only native to parts of north India, and is a foreign language in Pakistan.

Since north India (Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, etc.) was the base of Muslim and British empires, the Urdu-speaking north Indian Muslims had an environmental advantage in better education, jobs, and businesses. The result being that the Urdu-speaking north Indian Muslims dominated in South Asia as the educated elitist Muslim class. Due to their domination, it led to Urduization of some other non-Urdu-speaking Muslims who sought better education and status. Also, to some extent, propaganda of Urdu as being the only true "Muslim" and "superior" language of South Asia was promoted. With the birth of Pakistan Movement, the bulk of it having a majority of Urdu-speaking north Indians, Urdu language was further promoted. Upon Pakistan's creation, the peak of Urduization process became a reality with the imposition of Urdu on the non-Urdu speaking peoples of Pakistan, in the form of Urdu as the national language of Pakistan.

Except for the 7% of Pakistanis who are north Indian Muslim migrants or their descendents, also known as Muhajirs, whose mother-tongue is Urdu, none of the other Pakistanis have anything to do with Urdu. In fact, imposition of Urdu is resented among many peoples of Pakistan. The loss of East Pakistan was also mostly due to imposition of Urdu on Bengalis of the former East Pakistan region. There were language riots in Sindh during the 70s. And basically Urdu is resisted in much of the country. If many people have learnt Urdu, it is simply because they are forced to do so, for social and economic communicational necessities under the Urdu-dominated system of the country. Instead of Urdu, why was not Arabic or Persian made the national language of Pakistan? At least, Arabic is the language of Islam (of Quran), thus naturally it would had been more accepted among Pakistanis. Also, Persian was another logical option, because of its historical role of being the official language in the region (Muslim and other periods), and would have made us closer to the Muslim brothers on our western borders.

National language is suppose to unite a country, but in Pakistan, Urdu as the national language has caused division and resentment among most Pakistanis. But the worse part is that Urdu being a north Indian language and foreign to Pakistan is slowly destroying the local languages/cultures, and "Indianizing" the native Pakistanis. This is cultural and linguistic genocide of Pakistanis. It is Indian imperialism, wearing the mask of falsehoods about Urdu language. Many of the native languages of Pakistan are already in danger of being extinct, mostly due to Urdu imposition. And when a language dies, so does its people's identity and heritage. Pakistan was created mostly based on our cultural distinctiveness; unfortunately, Urdu-imposition is only forcefully making us artificially closer to India. And with this linguistic imperialism, also comes other aspects of cultural invasion. For example, north Indian music/TV/film dominates in Pakistan, whereas native Pakistani music/film/TV is largely ignored by the Urdu dominated media. Indian culture is widely spreading in Pakistan and it is visible with more women wearing the Indian dress sari, people adopting many Indian words/phrases in their native Pakistani languages, many Indian customs and ceremonies followed by Pakistanis, Pakistanis being brainwashed with biased Indian socio-political views, and much more.

We Pakistanis are grateful to Quaid-e-Azam for his efforts in the creation of Pakistan; however, as a human being he was not perfect. Jinnah's choice of Urdu as the national language of Pakistan was his biggest mistake with long-term negative consequences. Criticizing Urdu as the national language of Pakistan might be very painful to many Pakistanis. But ignoring this issue with falsehoods and illusions will only worsen the problem. Let us be open-minded and cease Urdu as the national language of Pakistan. At the same time, Urdu language should be respected, and people given the freedom to learn or speak it. Promoting native languages to become the official languages of their respective provinces or districts is the best solution to the problem. All native languages of Pakistan should be declared as the national languages of Pakistan. This will ensure the preservation of our language/culture, unity and respect between the various ethnicities, and pride and distinctiveness in our Pakistani nationhood. If a multi-lingual country like Switzerland can have a successful multi-linguistic system, then so can the Pakistanis. Let us make change for our betterment before it's too late!