American English in the UK?

Guest   Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:47 am GMT
This guy was here before by the name of J.K.
Uriel   Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:48 am GMT
Don't remember that one.
Hilda   Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:15 am GMT
I reckon we can only be grateful that Matt seems to be in a world where no one agrees with his bigotry. Shame he has to vent his misogyny and abuse on an on-line forum intended to discuss language, but he probably doesn't have anyone to talk to in the real world.

Just a question, Matt:

<It does not just include support for multi-racialism, multi-culturalism, women's rights, homosexual rights, but extends into environmentalism>

Are you saying these are things we should discourage?
Guest   Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:39 am GMT
He's a Nazi.
Guest   Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:41 am GMT
I can't find his old posts. I guess they're all deleted.
Uriel   Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:00 pm GMT
As a shameful plant-hater should be.

<<Just a question, Matt:

<It does not just include support for multi-racialism, multi-culturalism, women's rights, homosexual rights, but extends into environmentalism>

Are you saying these are things we should discourage? >>

Perhaps that time portal has closed and he has been whisked safely back to the 19th century, Hilda. ;P
Hilda   Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:50 am GMT
1. << the war on spelling>> Is that like the War on Terror?! Undergraduates have marks deducted from essays for poor spelling and grammar, Matt. There is no 'war on spelling', no matter what you read in the Daily Mail. One academic voices a radical view on spelling - so what? Breakfast time must be fun in your household. I bet you pick up your Daily Mail in the morning, read some sensationalist bollocks about failing standards (next to the article "Can bananas cause cancer?") and then fly into a fit of rage, spluttering into your coffee and blaming the state of the nation on single mums, immigrants and gays.


2. <<There should be an outside body reviewing theses>>
Like a Ministry of Truth? What a fantastic idea - government censorship of all academic institutions. Papers are peer-reviewed, Matt. Don't be a tit.

However, I actually have a couple of serious questions for you. You clearly have some strong views, so maybe you could share your reasoning with us in an intelligent debate (without the abusive insults and capital letters). And as this is a forum about language, and not the Tory Party Conference, I think we should bring the issue back to language and leave the politics aside.

a) You entered the forum with some comments about how you hate American English. You also go on to criticise my English (somewhat hypocritically, since your grasp of the language is limited enough for you not to recognise the word 'linguistician'), and you apparently don't accept the authority of the OED. With all of that in mind, I get the impression that you would like to see the imposition of an externally regulated, standardised, 'correct' English. Is that right? Are you arguing for the establishment of something along the lines of the Academie Française to regulate the English language? If you are, can you explain - remember, no rude words or shouty capitals - what you think the benefits of that would be?

b) Again, from what you've written, I get the impression that you think any attempt to move away from the standardised norm constitutes 'bad English'. However, as I'm sure you'll be aware, many writers who are generally accepted to have greatly enriched the English language have done so by playing with forms and inventing vocabulary. The most obvious example is Shakespeare. I'm not one for endorsing canons, but most people would probably describe him not only as a literary genius, but also someone who had a profound impact on the English language due to his prolific creation of new terms. He supposedly invented more new words than any other writer. Do you consider that Shakespeare's use of language constitutes 'bad English'?
Damian in Edinburgh   Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:57 am GMT
I'm not too sure whether or not our "friend" Matt has even set eyes on the Daily Mail down at his local newsagents let alone read it. I still suspect that the closest he has possibly ever been to the circulation area of this paper is Cape Cod.

The bloke is perfetly entitled to his views though, and he has the same right as the rest of us to express them in this Forum. I quite enjoy reading his rants actually - but whether or not he should be abusive to people is open to question. Calling someone a "moron" somehow makes me think that he may be a Brit after all - it's a word used quite often as a term of insult over here meaning stupid and of low intelligence - a bit like cretin. I'm not sure whether Americans use these words to be offensive - maybe the apparent American strict adherence to politial correctness may prohibit this?

My views on the works of Shakespeare and his massive contribution to the English Language are the same as Hilda's - I have replicated elsewhere in this Forum her comments on the absorption into our every day speech today of the many terms and expressions which sprang forth from The Bard of Avon's inky pen all those years ago. I'd like to bet that Matt has used some of those very terms himself over the past few days without having the slightest inkling about their origin.

I don't think I'd relish being his next door neighbour to be perfectly honest, but in cities and large towns it's not uncommon for people to live next door to each other and still remain strangers apart from the most basic of greetings or a slight nod of the head now and again while trying to remember where you've seen him (or her) before! I can't imagine ever exchanging niceties over the garden fence with Matt, if some of his remarks in here are any true guide of his views! ;-)
Guest   Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:25 pm GMT
A recent post from 'Matt' on another forum:

<<I suppose if California could become independent and all the non-whites forced to move there, and then the other 49 states could become the wonderful extension of Britain and Europe that the Founding Fathers planned all along, and then everyone would be happy. You woudl have the crime, the drug abuse, the trash culture, the MTV, and the rest would luxuriate and glorify in their Britannic culture heritage, with polite behaviour, low crime rates, the Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible, low taxes, and every man a proud owner of his own loaded weapons. If only... if only...>>

He's obviously just a bored teenager having a laugh.
Jasper   Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:28 pm GMT
[The bloke is perfetly entitled to his views though, and he has the same right as the rest of us to express them in this Forum. I quite enjoy reading his rants actually - but whether or not he should be abusive to people is open to question.]

The trouble is that an element of impertinence was brought into an otherwise thoroughly engaging discussion. It's been my observation that such impertinence is the death knell to intelligent discourse. Didn't you notice a complete change in tenor in this discussion after his presence became known?

Moreover, I was privately appalled at his boorish, misogynist treatment of Hilda. To be equally fair, I did learn about generalizations and stereotypes, however--being British doesn't necessarily bring polished manners, does it? (We Americans have it in our minds that polished manners are common among the Brits.)
Uriel   Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:14 am GMT
We use moron and cretin in the US. Moron is definitely more common, though. You'll hear it all the time. Cretin or cretinous are much less common, and I usually see them in print rather than hear them in speech.
Guest   Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:01 am GMT
<<To be equally fair, I did learn about generalizations and stereotypes, however--being British doesn't necessarily bring polished manners, does it?>>

No, we have our fair share of tossers, too. No country has a monopoly on them!
Guest   Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:00 pm GMT
<<low taxes, >>

If you want the US to become more like Europe or the UK, I'd think high taxes would be more in order.
Damian in Edinburgh   Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:23 pm GMT
It's quite funny (the amusing kind) the stereotypcal image some people abroad apparently still hold about the British people generally - especially the English......"polished manners" "formally polite with lips mega stiff" "crystal clear speech with rounded vowels" "sober and upstanding" "unfailing courtesy" "elegant in style and deportment" "models of fair play" "reverence and compassion for the underdog" and so on and so on.....

It doesn't quite work out that way, guys......British people may be polite in the sense that we do adhere to the "queueing system" and don't make a frantic dash to the front and may the devil take the hindmost sort of thing - as happens in other countries, as we see when we leave these shores. And we do have the habit of apologising to people when THEY charge into us in a crowded place or THEY step on our toes or THEY bump THEIR supermarket trolley into ours, and we do have the habit of making sure we say "please" and "thank you" in the right place and when ordering a pint down the pub or buying stamps at the post office or asking a copper for directions to the nearest public loo.

However, the images of a sort of Merrie Englande of well behaved little urchins, courtly gentlemen, simpering maidens and ever cheerful rosy cheeked postmen and portly coppers on bikes and all that sort of caper now belongs to the novels of P D James and Agatha Christie. At one time of the day, back in the dim and distant, people used to leave their house keys hanging close to the letter box inside the front door. Or leave the week's milk money close to the empties on the front doorstep. Or leave their windows wide open when they went out for the evening.

You'd have to be really stupid to do that nowadays, even if you live in quaint, pretty little Chipping Sodbury or Wyre Piddle or Steeple Bumpstead - yes, those villages do exist - it just wouldn't be wise, for as the above poster says (it hurts me to say that because I try not to acknowledge any "Guest" but there you go....) - we really do have our fair share of foul mouthed tossers and pissed up scumbags and scallies (as they say in Liverpool) or as we say here in Scotland - laidrons or pawkies. In England: yobs and chavs. Here in Scotland - neds is the word. Both "chav" and "ned" are acronyms - "council house adolescent vermin" and "non employable delinquents" - but tossers can be of any age, of course.

As ever, small minorities get all the bad publicity while the GBP* mostly go about their business quiety and un-noticed.

*Official term for the Great British Public.
Guest   Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:28 pm GMT
I wonder why Canada is more of a Scandinavian country than a US-influenced neighbor. Even in rural parts of Canada there is more tolerance (racial, feminist or gay/lesbian tolerance) than in many large cities of American South and Midwest.