|
|
pimple
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
To read 'English' in a story when your native tongue is 'American'? (And the flip if you are from that little island made habitable by the gulf stream)
A couple of words that really set my teeth on edge: 'whilst' and 'wank' 'wanker' and all other derivations. It could be just me. I don't have trouble relating to the settings, just some of the vocabulary.
If it is also the case with you, which words are like fingernails on a chalkboard to you?
Regards
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... or we'll be here all night!
Actually, I've found it a bit like learning a foreign language; if I'm reading a story set in the USA I've taught myself to 'think' in American English; if I'm reading a story set in the UK I 'think' in British English.
Irritations? Not really, or at least not strongly. I don't like Webster's 'Americanised' spelling because it was a pretty amateurish business. English is undoubtedly a mongrel language, with almost no rules which apply universally, and it changes very rapidly. It does however have some broad principles which Webster ignored. A good example is the doubling of a consonant to show that the preceding vowel is 'short'. OK, there are several exceptions to the rule in UK English, many of these being US imports, but the double 'l' in 'traveller' indicates a short 'e', as in 'hell'; the US spelling 'traveler' suggests to a UK English speaker that the pronunciation should be 'traveeler'. There are dozens of examples of this, and even on this board you can see that American English users are more prone to mis-spell short words because they are unfamiliar with this rule - for example 'tinny' for 'tiny'. Websterism also makes some US words seem peculiar to a UK English speaker: 'color', for example, sounds completely different from the UK English 'colour', which is pronounced 'culler'.
Essentially, language is a living thing. We don't appreciate the rate of change while we are at school; it's only when we look back over a period of twenty or thirty years that we are aware of the differences. In UK English, grammar and syntax have changed significantly over the past 50 years. In the middle of the last century, it was definitely not permissible to start a sentence with a conjunction, but now one of the standard works (Gower) actively encourages this - 'But that wasn't the end of the story ....'
In France, and in a few other countries, there are government-sponsored institutions which oversees the language, and attempt to limit the absorption of 'loan words'. Sometimes they fail; 'le weekend' is still the accepted French term for Friday afternoon to Sunday evening. I think the whole idea is daft - why shouldn't we let language go its own way, as it has done throughout history? The phrase I used above is a good example; I think the US English 'Friday afternoon through Sunday evening' illustrates the meaning better than the UK English version.
If I have a source of instinctive irritation with US usage, it's the coupling 'different than'. The UK distinction between 'similar TO' and 'different FROM' seems to me to be altogether more logical. But then again, logic doesn't seem to have played much of a part in the development of language, so I guess I'm being pedantic. Deeej and JFR, I crave your forgiveness and promise not to make a habit of it!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Cossie's answer was 'No' er 'Well, maybe' ahh 'No, I'll stick with no! but there are words....'
Just to simply paraphrase.
Regards-
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no objection to reading American stories in American English and I expect a similar tolerance the other way round. Despite that I have a confession. When I download an American story, I always put the spellchecker on it and convert it to British spelling. It's easier on the eye.
The one word I object to is 'Mom' for 'Mum'. I don't know how it is pronounced in the US, but when I was in Canada I distinctly heard it pronounced as 'Mum'.
There are certain words that puzzle me. It took me ages to find out what a condo was. I know biscuits (cookies) are entirely different things in America, but I don't know what. But what are grits and cheetos? Americans drink soda, we either mix it with whisky or do the washing with it. One of my correspondents wanted to know what tea was - the meal as opposed to the drink.
During my travels in Canada I was interested to note a mixture between British and US spelling.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'Wank' and 'wanker' are slang words -- you won't see them very often except in direct speech. 'Whilst' is a bit archaic, even in the UK: I try not to use it. Do Americans actually not use it at all? Or are you assuming it's English when in fact it is both English and American?
I'd have to agree with Nigel: I don't mind American spellings and constructions, provided that the spelling is consistent, and that the characters and setting are American. The author doesn't even have to be American, though one would expect the narrator to be. However, I seriously object to books or stories that are set in the UK or other "British English"-spelling countries that use American spelling; it implies lack of respect for our way of doing things. If the author is not sure what is appropriate, he should ask a native English speaker.
This works both ways -- I also dislike Americans who use strange and archaic "Britishisms" to try and sound British (if they can't get it right, then it's better just to use American); and also British people who try to write American and end up with a strange mid-Atlantic language that pleases no-one.
In case the compilers of the CIA World Factbook were wondering -- there is no such thing as the Labor Party in the UK. It is the Labour Party. You would have thought they would appreciate that it is a "brand name" and not just a couple of translatable words strung together.
In case Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code, was wondering, Royal Holloway University of London (no comma there, by the way), my university, is never called "The Holloway" or "The Royal Holloway" in colloquial speech. It is called "Royal Holloway" or "Holloway" or "RHUL". Presumably he didn't bother actually to speak to the university before he started using it in his book.
Oh, and Tony Blair is not called "Prime Minister Blair", either, George W. Bush and friends. He is Mr. Blair. Prime Minister is not a title; it is an office.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I said,
>I seriously object to books or stories that are set in the UK or other "British English"-spelling countries that use American spelling
To clarify, I resent it if the narrator is supposed to be British. It's okay if the narrator is American, provided that he doesn't start adapting proper names and things like that.
Spelling is not nearly as difficult to get right as grammar and vocabulary, however; and if these are quoted in direct speech, or supposed to be originating with a British person, then they have to be right or the audience can lose its suspension of disbelief. This is a major problem in amateur fiction, where the the author does not necessarily have the benefit of a good editor, and a real problem in commercial publishing as well. Witness the (albeit pretty minor) RHUL problem I mentioned in the parent post. It is also a problem in Hollywood films.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Nigel wrote:
Greetings-
Since I can't spell, I never thought to ask about it. In my brain color and colour look exactly the same. It is hard to explain how I read or write.
A mum is a flower that no one can spell, and 'Mom' is short for mommy and follows the rules for pronunciation as outlined by Cossie.
A biscuit is a cross between a bread roll and a savory scone. Grits are corn mush. Cheetos are a southwest flavored (hot spice & cheese) crisp. Some of us drink pop, while others drink soda, a very very few of us call it tonic.
Regards-
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It becomes clear, and I am particularly thinking outside this MB, that spelling matters only to those that can spell. To those that can't, it doesn't matter.
(All generalisations are wrong; even this generalisation may be wrong.)
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Oddly, I have no trouble reading something in that derivative of English mangled in the USA.
Translating a story for the US market seems a farcical amount of hard work. Words are words. Slang is slang.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A grit is a very tinny piece of corn that is removed during processing. You cook it add butter and cheese and salt and pepper and it is terrific. Only to people who live in the south. Yankees are not even shure what it is.;-D ;-D
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually English cant be mangled. English is called the international trade language. There is a reason for this. English by its nature is the most versital language in the world. English borrows words from other languages and uses Latin and Greek to a large extent. English is more discriptive and can be manipulated to get an idea accross. Other languages are so bound up in rules that they are not flexable. We need a new word for something, we just invent it.
I saw a show on PBS about the English language. People in the Southern States speak closer to true English than those in the Northern States. The people who settled the Northern states were mostly German, Italian, French, etc.. In the Southern States, it was British, Irish, Scottish. There are still communities in the hills here that actually speak the Irish Language. ;-D ;-D
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Irish? Can we send you the rest Brian? 
Actually Simon, you've obviously no idea how much we wince sometimes when we see the Americanised version of some of the more common English words.
It works both ways you see? ;-D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Actually English cant be mangled.
Hmm. I don't think that's true. Insofar that there is no "standard" English, you are right; American English is not "wrong" ("mangled") and British English is not "right" ("not mangled"). But when a dialect is so different that it is unrecognisable to people who speak another, then there's a good case for saying it has been mangled, even if both ends contend that they are not the ones who have done it. For example, if you, an American, can't understand a thick Scottish accent, then they are speaking mangled American English -- and if you, an American, can't make yourself understood to them then you are speaking mangled Scottish English.
Calling it an international trade language somewhat undermines your point -- if it is, then it means that there are a certain set of rules that everyone must obey! If someone can split off their own version that other people have trouble understanding, it is not a proper "international" language any more. Who makes the rules about what is part of the "international" version and what is not?
A final point: Bad spelling and grammar are certainly mangling. They make it harder to understand the language without adding any extra meaning. In fact, they take away meaning by introducing ambiguities. Even if it is possible to resolve those by taking into account the context, it wastes time on the part of the listener or reader.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That has to do with the accent, not the language itself. There is a boy at school who is Chinese. He speaks english, but has a very strong accent. That doesnt mena he doesnt speak english. Its like French. There is no french word for Television, so they have to borrow the english word, which Im sure they hate. You can twist english anyway you want and it still can come out half way understandable. Even if something is misspelled, it can still be understood.
I have a friend in school in Denmark. He speaks really good english. I ask him if he took classes. He told me that in Denmark your school from 1st to 5th grade anre taught in Dutch, you are also taught english, from the 6th thru the 12 th grad your classes are taught in english.
Im not expert and Im sure I can do my share of damage to the english language. Unlike other languages, English is in a constant state of change. New slang words are being invented all the time, its not hard to figure them out. Aint that right Dog?
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, it's not all accent. Different dialects use different grammatical constructions and different vocabularies. Sometimes they differ so much as to be incomprehensible to speakers of other dialects, even when written down.
There is a word for television in French -- télévision. Yes, it came through English, but it works fine as a French word too. The French don't need to invent another one.
>You can twist english anyway you want and it still can come out half way understandable. Even if something is misspelled, it can still be understood.
From the context, usually, yes. But so can you in French. And many languages. There is nothing "special" about English, except for the fact that a lot of people speak it. There is no central authority monitoring it, who will object if you change it, but there are a lot of actual speakers who won't understand if you change it too much. It is changing gradually, but not everyone is changing at the same rate, or to the same thing. In fact, it's surprising that English and American are still so similar.
>I have a friend in school in Denmark. He speaks really good english. I ask him if he took classes. He told me that in Denmark your school from 1st to 5th grade anre taught in Dutch, you are also taught english, from the 6th thru the 12 th grad your classes are taught in english.
Taught in Dutch? Do you mean Danish?
I still maintain there is nothing inherently special about English; in fact, it is a very complicated language to learn and to speak. It just happens that it is spoken by a number of former British colonies and so has become, by sheer chance, one of the most important languages in the world. I think maintaining it is inherently better than other languages is a rather Anglo/American-centric way of looking at the world.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im not an english expert and Im not trying to be. I have enought trouble with it myself. I agree that english is a very difficult language to learn. Im not sure how to put it. I dont think that we are pushing the language off on anyone. I think its that English is so versital and discriptive and is virtually unlimited since it can borrow from other languages and even invent words to fit the need. The french probably do have a word or several that would be used for television, but it would probably be so long that it would take 10 minutes to say it, so the english is more condensed and gets the point accross. Im not saying that English is the best language, but it isnt cut in stone and we dont have a commitee or a section of government dictating the proper use thereof. The language is just like the people who use it, free and indipendant. Like I said im no expert, but I have watched shows dealing with the English language and I only have that to go by.
Im sure they speak Danish (which if Im not mistaken is a form of Dutch).
;-D ;-D
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>The french probably do have a word or several that would be used for television, but it would probably be so long that it would take 10 minutes to say it, so the english is more condensed and gets the point accross
So much for what you "probably" think. I've looked up the word television and it turns out it is a French word, coined by a Russian scientist, Constantin Perskyi, from Greek and Latin roots.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_television
I hardly think you're in a good position to argue that "television" is a good example of an English word which the French have subsequently "borrowed", when it was French to begin with!
>it isnt cut in stone and we dont have a commitee or a section of government dictating the proper use thereof.
We have any number of grammars and dictionaries. You may argue they only respond to changes in the language, and don't dictate anything, but the fact is, people do use them so that they can know what the rules are. That's almost the same as having an "official" version of the language.
>Im sure they speak Danish (which if Im not mistaken is a form of Dutch).
Can anyone else comment? I know that they are both Germanic languages but, then again, so is English. I've never seen anything to suggest they are so similar as to be the same language; though I don't speak either of them so I could be wrong.
>Like I said im no expert, but I have watched shows dealing with the English language and I only have that to go by.
How many languages do you actually speak, Brian?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I said,
>So much for what you "probably" think.
Sorry, Brian: that sounds a bit rude. It wasn't the intention when I wrote it, but of course I could hear my own tone where it isn't necessarily clear to anyone else. Just one of the hazards of writing rather than saying. 
I'm not convinced that I would have done any better or worse if I'd said it in another language, though!
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said Im not an expert in English, nor in any other language. If French is so hot, why do they need to borrow a word from the English. I can speal a bit of Magyar, some spanish and some German, but im not very proficient in any of them. The Magyar I learned from my friend Kol who is Hungarian. Like I said I watched some shows on the english language and was impressed by it. Especially the part about the south here. I have always heard the word hain't. the show said it is actually is the words Have not,a nd was actually shortened even more to aint. Its old English and you wont hear it in the north. My interest do not run in the way of language, except that I dont like the hip hop stuff or rap crap. Actually, now that I think about it guess it is possible to mangle the english language.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>If French is so hot, why do they need to borrow a word from the English.
Which word? Not television, we've established that.
If English is so hot, why do we need to borrow words from the French, the Germans, the Greeks, the Romans?
Not to mention the fact that English has actually *evolved* from some of those (French through Norman French, which was itself evolved from Latin; German through the various Saxon and Viking tribes that invaded England before 1066; God knows what else before that).
How do you think we got so many different words for things? Because they came from a lot of different roots. It's both one of the major strengths of English -- we have a wealth of material to draw upon, so a wonderfully large vocabulary; and its major weaknesses -- it's not all that consistent, because the words come from all over the place.
Just because the French do it doesn't mean it's bad, you know. And just because we do it doesn't mean it's good -- though in this case I'd argue that it is.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deeej wrote:
(snip)
>I think maintaining it is inherently better than other languages is a rather Anglo/American-centric way of looking at the world.
>
I've always understood that English differed from most other languages in having a lot of words which come from different roots, and mean nearly-but-not-quite the same thing. Which undoubtedly makes English a difficult language to learn, but also means that a number of shades of meaning are available in English that other languages may struggle to achieve.
However, I'm no linguist!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My friend Kol told me once that learning english was like learning all the languages in the world at the same time. He said that was what confused him the most, but what he did realize is that he could discribe something better or get a point accross better in English than Magyar. I agree with NW, I think its the ability to actually incorporate other languages in ours that gives english its streigth. there are so maney diff shades of meaning cause of all the diff words at our disposal. I dont have anything against French, or any other language, However, I dont feel uncultured cause I dont speak French.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NW,
I agree with you: English does have an awful lot of words and hence has shades that other languages don't. (Though that's not to say that other languages can't have wonderful poetry, literature, etc. of their own.)
You did, however, take me slightly out of context: what I meant was that there is nothing special about it that has made it the language of choice for millions or even billions of people. It's popular now because it's the official language of the USA (and the UK, Canada, Australia, India etc.) -- and it's popular there because of the British Empire and its colonies, not because anyone ever sat down and said, "English! Aha, let's learn that instead of French because it has twice as many words for underwear."
(Before anyone asks, I have no idea how many words there are for underwear in French.)
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>However, I dont feel uncultured cause I dont speak French.
You'd feel uncultured if you went to France and you didn't speak French! 
They are a seriously proud nation, to the point of being arrogant. They've got an inferiority complex: once they owned half the known world. Now they're not even well-regarded in Europe. So did we, come to think of it. But we're lucky enough to be allies of the US. (Ahem.)
On the other hand, if you tried to learn French (even a little) and visited France, they'd love you for it. They're a good looking nation, even if they do smell of garlic. And French has one major advantage over English: it sounds sexy.
Plus, they have good food. And their countryside is nearly as pretty as England. Oh, and they have some of the best skiing in Europe.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Where, on this side of the puddle, is anyone speaking Gaelic????
By the way, I noticed that slight to your northern neighbors. I'm not sure of your geography, but I suspect you're in a border state - just passing as a southerner.
Regards-
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Nucular!
Aluminum
Anestehesiologist (good grief)
fetus
As for purses and pocket books!
And homely means ugly?
Odd language, American.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>People in the Southern States speak closer to true English than those in the Northern States. The people who settled the Northern states were mostly German, Italian, French, etc.. In the Southern States, it was British, Irish, Scottish.
In what way?
As a native English English speaker, I find the Northern American accents easier to understand than the Southern accents (though I prefer absence of accent most of all, such as those used in the Lord of the Rings films -- or did Americans think they were English accents?). As far as grammar and spelling go, apart from small colloquial differences, I imagine they are just the same.
If the people in the Northern states were mostly German, Italian and French, why did they settle on English as a language? Why not one of those languages?
Just interested -- I'm not trying to contradict you or score points.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I live in the central South. It really not a slight, just the way it is. Wish I could remember the name of the show PBS ran about it. There are communities in the Apalachin mountains that are heavy In the Irish traditions, language and music.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Greetings
In my original question I allowed as the likelihood that 'the flip' was expected, and wondered which Americanisms drove you over the edge.
Well?
Regards-
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Altho the original colonies were settled by the english and spanish (why didnt spanish become the language here). When the people really started coming in it was mostly from the countries I listed. I think cause the original colonies were British at the time of the revelution. when things started getting crowded people started moving west. It just so happens that there were a lot of Irish, British, Scotts moving to the south and the west. There were also a huge influx of Irish during the potato famine. These communities were so isolated here that they retained a lot of the culture which they came from. There are still places in the mountains around here you dont want to go, you might not make it back alive.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Timmy wrote:
> Nuclear! Only if you're George Bush
>
> Aluminum Don't understand your issue
>
> Anesthesiologist what is it on your side??
>
> fetus You prefer dead baby?
>
> As for purses and pocket books! Wallet & handbag
>
> And homely means ugly? No, 'homely' is the accepted meaning - sorta like me (and you?)
Do I need to point out that Webster standardized American spelling about fifty years ahead of the OED!
Regards
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Greetings Deej
Long time no speak!
There is a cadence that is different in the south. Word usage is fairly close. Perhaps that is what Brian means. The ethnic origins of the population base are correct, except he missed the poles, Danes and Norwegians. English was the common ground, it was what school was conducted in and therefore: American Standard
We consider the mid-west to be the least affected by accent, and most TV announcers speak with that lack of accent, think Johnny Carson or Walter Cronkite.
Regards-
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Do I need to point out that Webster standardized American spelling about fifty years ahead of the OED!
Do I need to remind you that there were other English dictionaries before Webster's (Johnson's, for one)? And while Johnson's dictionary may not be in common use today (though neither is Webster's original, come to that), it was pretty authoritative for its time.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>think Johnny Carson or Walter Cronkite
Hmm... thinking Johnny Carson or Walter Cronkite... er...
Nope, never heard of them. Sorry!
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Standardization came to American English before it came to English English! Is that redundant????
Quote your sources.
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
No Message Body
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Bad fingers:
Homely means common or plain - not striking.
Sorry
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... am I not allowed to meander inconsequentially from time to time? (If you attempt to suggest that I do it ALL the time, our beautiful friendship will be at an end!!!)
Deeej has dealt with 'wank' and 'wanker' perfectly adequately - but I'm sure many Brits find US sexual slang equally irritating. Incidentally, on a point of intellectual curiosity, what is the difference between an 'ass' and a 'butt'?
I'd be curious to know why you find 'whilst' irritating. I'm not sure that I agree with Deeej's assertion that it is archaic, though its usage is certainly changing. In strictness, it is an alternative to 'while', when that word is used as a conjunction. In that usage, 'while' has two distinct meanings: (1) During the time that/for as long as/at the same time as, and (2) In contrast with the fact that simultaneously/although/whereas. Historically, 'whilst' could be used in either sense, but during the last century there has been a tendency to avoid using it in the first sense, but to continue to use it (even in preference to 'while') in the second sense. So in the previous sentence 'whilst' could - and probably should - have been used instead of 'but'.
Timmy's post raises some interesting points. I can't say that I've seen the spelling 'nucular' in print, but that would certainly be mangling; the word derives from 'nucleus' and the correct spelling has to be 'nuclear'. 'Aluminum' is a fascinating case; ask a hundred Brits and ninety-nine will say that it's the Americanised spelling of 'Aluminium'. In fact, that's pretty well the opposite of the truth! The element was discovered in 1812 by the British chemist Sir Humphry Davy (1778-1829), and he coined the name 'aluminum'. That spelling was accepted into US English, but by the end of 1812 British scientists had changed the spelling to 'aluminium', presumably influenced by the '-ium' endings of the names of other elements such as sodium, potassium and magnesium - all of which had previously been named by Davy. So the score on that one is Rebellious Colonials 1, British English Speakers 0! Fetus is another word which the Brits can't complain about too much. It is recorded in that spelling in the fourteenth century, and the subsequent change to foetus seems to be a pseudo-classical conceit - which is surprising, because the Latin word from which it actually derives was 'fetus' (offspring). I'd bet that British English will revert to the original spelling within two or three decades. The adjective 'fetal' is already at least as common as 'foetal'. I think I'll change the subject here, as I'm starting to feel unpatriotic!
Moving on to 'mangling', Brian is essentially right. English is a relatively undisciplined language, which changes faster than any other Western European language. Coin a new word or usage and, if it has popular appeal, it will be accepted into the language within a decade. Whilst Deeej is certainly correct in suggesting that English has become so widespread because of Britain's political history, it is, in comparative terms, an amazingly tenacious language. Consider the history of these islands; the Anglo-Saxons began arriving more than 1500 years ago. They drove the Celtic-speaking British progressively further West, but after only two or three centuries they in turn were attacked and, in many areas, defeated by successive waves of Danes and Vikings - doubtless led by one of Sailor's ancestors! But, although there were numerous borrowings from Old Norse and Danish, it was the language of the Anglo-Saxons which survived and was ultimately adopted by the invaders. The Normans, who invaded in 1066, were descended from Scandinavians who had settled in the North of what is now France, and had adopted the French language. They attempted to enforce French upon the English, by making it tha language of the Court and of the Law, but again English survived and was eventually adopted by the French-speaking aristocracy.
Because of its flexibility and adaptability, English changed so rapidly that in the space of half a millennium it had altered so much that earlier versions were unintelligible to anyone other than a scholar who had studied the history of the language. However, in the post-medieval period, English writers regarded the language, with its preponderance of short, guttural words, as being in some way inferior to the 'romance' languages of France, Italy and Spain. That began a period of coinage of new words based on Latin or Greek which more than doubled the English vocabulary in the course of a couple of centuries. Thus, by the seventeenth century, the aristocracy had given up the Anglo-Saxon fuck and had, instead, begun to copulate (from the Latin 'copulare', to join together). This was the period of development which gave English its huge store of alternative words for the same concept, and - over time - these alternatives acquired subtly different shades of meaning.
So, in terms of vocabulary, English probably is the richest language in the world and, in terms of history, it is surely one of the most resilient.
I think that this is already the longest post I have ever made (and that's saying something!), so I'll think about drawing to a conclusion - though that's very difficult, as this is one of my all-time favourite subjects! The thread began with Simon's post about the distinctions between British and American English. I think that these distinctions strengthen, rather than weaken the language. The only 'americanisation' to which I object was Webster's alteration of spellings. He didn't apply the necessary scholarship to the matter - perhaps he was incapable of doing so - and he left us with a mess. This is a dynamic language - it would have changed itself soon enough if there had been a popular wish that it should do so. In his changes, Webster did the Rebellious Colonials no favours, by ignoring some of the few rules of pronunciation. So my favourite grandson wrote 'tinny' in his post above, when he meant 'tiny' - an error much less likely to happen among British English speakers.
I'm not too surprised to hear that there are Irish Gaelic speakers in the Appalachians. Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that there were pterodactyls in the Appalachians! Seriously, though, there are quite a number of Welsh-speaking communities in the Argentinian area of Patagonia. Unhappily, there are also quite a number of Welsh-speaking communities in Wales!
Finally (I promise!), this is a short list of words which regularly occur in stories but which are different East and West of the Atlantic.
US: Sidewalk = UK: Pavement
US: Cookies = UK: Biscuits
US: Biscuits = UK: Dumplings
US: Chips = UK: Crisps
US: French Fries = UK: Chips (though French Fries are smaller)
US: Faucet = UK: Tap
US: Interstate = UK: Motorway
US: Semester = UK: Term
US: Apartment = UK: Flat
US: First Floor = UK: Ground Floor
US: Second Floor = UK: First Floor (and so on)
US: Butt = UK: Bum
US: Bum = UK: Tramp
US: Ass = UK: Arse
US: Yard = UK: Garden (In UK English, yard is a hard-surfaced area)
... and there are dozens more; if you can think of some, let us all know!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
and I mean that in a completely non-sexual way. It is not meant to offend. My humo(u)r is the type that works in a conversation, but seems sharp and pointy on a page (or screen).
You are allowed to wander through the primroses to your heart's content.
I gotta ask: Were you a teacher in a former life?
I know a lot more than I ever expected to learn from a BBS about the English/American language.
Regards
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
No Message Body
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
