Attacks in Paris

Goodness only knows!! You'd have to ask a young person!! I suppose it just morphed into meaning, wonderful, amazing, out of this world, terrific, by default!!! I think you can tell in what context it's being used by the subject matter of a conversation, article or whatever, and I think when referring to war it is pretty obvious which definition is being used!!!!!!

Confusion reigns...yet again!

Never - I reiterate at my peril, I know - was the term 'Great War' used with any connotation of triumphalism. I have never heard it used by my generation or that of my parents. Let's give it a rest.

And if Granjura's 6 year old DGS or indeed anybody's DGC asks "Why was it called the Great War, Granny?" it is quite easy to say that "Great " means big and it was at the time the biggest war anybody had ever ecperienced.
QED

The answer to your question is emphatically NO! The word meant very big, (like a GREAT Dane dog, which means large, not brilliant!!) enormous, all encompassing, and to suggest otherwise is just complete rubbish! No one now or then would consider millions of dead people and so much suffering as some sort of lark to puff out your chest and boast about. FGS!!!

I never mean any harm btw

We know you didn't!!

due to its more modern interpretation

there is - or was - a thread about words changing in meaning over the years wasn't there?

'Great War' was the most commonly used name for the First World War at the time, although 'European War' was also sometimes used. As the first pan-European War since Napoleon, 'Great' simply indicated the enormous scale of the conflict, much as we might today talk of a 'great storm' or a 'great flood'. However, the term also had moral connotations. The Allies believed they were fighting against an evil militarism that had taken hold in Germany. 'Great War' carried echoes of Armageddon, the biblical Great Battle of Good and Evil to be fought at the end of Time (there was indeed a battle at Megiddo, the site of Armageddon, in September 1918). It was therefore sometimes referred to as 'the Great War for Civilisation'. Although 'Great War' remained in use after the conflict was over, the moral connotations and implications that it had been 'a war to end all wars' fell away as the prospect grew in the 1930s of a second world war.

Sorry to go on, granjura I thought the extra bit about Armageddon was worth posting.

Saying 'that's great' as meaning that something is wonderful is a very modern interpretation of the word.
Similar to 'that's cool' not actually meaning low in temperature etc

Anya. I've read this. I've read that they will do it by shear numbers. It's possible, with what's happening in Europe now.

Very worrying. Much more so than how people interpret the word 'great'.

Aren't most primary school children in the UK, certainly England spending some classroom time this year covering both wars? My two have taken part in some wonderful projects and understand why the Great War was called the Great War. There are many new books, for 6-10 year olds published too.
It may be a part of the same initiative to offer all older children the opportunity to visit the war graves in Europe.

Tricia

To answer your question. I didn't.

Very interesting rose- had never seen this at the time.

Yes, Alea- quite obviously this is how I explained it to grandson- but it was him wo said that it seemed really strange to call it 'Great' as it was just so terrible and killed so many.

I shudder whenever I heard WW1 being called 'the Great War' - it killed millions in the most atrocious of ways, on both sides- and served no purpose at all, none

Well if you had said it was your DGS who didn't understand , instead of saying how you felt, a lot of misunderstanding might have been avoided.

TBH I think our role is to educate our DGC not to dumb down our own use of language because of their lack of understanding. I am puzzled why you claimed you didn't understand the use of the word when it was your 6 year old DGS who needed the explanation.

And if you 'quite obviously' explained to him what the 'great' in this instance meant, why make such a big fuss about it on here...?

I will take anno's advice and leave it. But for the record, I didn't 'make 'such a big fuss about it' - roses questionned it, which was fine, and then others pounced. My initial post on the subject made it clear I didn't missunderstand the word, but found it tragically misappropriate, after my GS's question.

ooops inappropriate.

This is getting convoluted and rather pointless. We can all read what was said in the relevant posts and draw our own conclusions, but if there was no misunderstanding of the implications of the usage of "Great" in the "Great War" then there was nothing to discuss or frankly, reason the raise the subject in the first place. There was no mention of a DGS for several posts or of his questioning of the term and it has all become a bit of a non-issue.

If you research WW1 you can get a good picture of why that war was fought and how this country got embroiled in it. It did serve a purpose contrary to popular belief.

www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/nick/the-terrorists-win-if-we-abandon-our-values-4644

Good to see your kink Jen, I agree with him

One of my favourite groups, Annie. How did you know?

I agree with him, too.

Just been reading an email from Al Jazeera. There's almost a book about how Isil started.

interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2015/riseofisil/index.html

Far too much to read tonight, but it is interesting, what I've read so far.

Good to see your kink Jen, I agree with him


Oops! Ab! Ray Davies?

When the military action is extended I hope we have sensible plans in place for all the displaced folk.