You're right, Guybrush; Iceland and Norway are either physically or historically more isolated from Europe - especially as the "technical land bridge" that you mention presumably occurs to no-one when they are planning a trip from Oslo to Hamburg!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guybrush
The only one I can think of is "Syden" which is a bit like "the south", but which generally means popular tourist spots you go on vacation where it's warm, like around the mediterranean. Mallorca or Crete are good examples, but the term is not Europe specific.
There is no usage of the word/name Europe here in which it doesn't also include Norway and we don't talk about or consider Europe as something we're not part of. When we talk about other european nations, we tend to be specific. For example, we don't simply travel to Europe. We're going to Austria by way of Denmark and Germany.
|
Thanks for these answers: the bit in bold suggests that Norwegians have a clarity of word-use and therefore perspective that Brits are still fumbling over.
Quote:
|
Maybe there's something to England having had so many dealings with other European nations on the level of nobility, royalty, trade, politics, war, diplomacy, etc. while still being separated that somehow ironically adds to this feeling of or need for separation?
|
Yes, so much of England's history with Continental Europe is told in terms of war, invasion, etc that we get rather stuck with an "us and them" attitude. Even in something less politically charged, like the history of architecture, we learn about "Renaissance Europe", which is earlier, and different from "The English Renaissance".