british or american english?

Guest   Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:31 am GMT
"as a filipino, i can say that british english is easier to understand than the americans."

Seriously? Isn't American English one of the native languages spoken in the Philipines? I've heard alot of Filipinos speaking what sounded like a native derivative of American English (as well as others who speak a non-native derivative). Do you have trouble speaking to these people, or do you never speak English to them?
Kirk   Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:43 am GMT
<<American English is actually simpler than British English both grammatically and phonetically>>

No, Brennus, linguistically speaking there's no way to quantify what is "simpler" in terms of languages/dialects. What usually happens is where one variety becomes what could be called simpler in one area of language, it becomes equally more complex in another one.

<<just as Mexican Spanish is from Castillian or even South American Spanish.>>

The same as I said above applies to these examples as well.

<<Cuturally too, it's easier to be an American than and Englishman.>>

??????.......
Travis   Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:45 am GMT
>>Maybe so but I think that you're in the minority. American English is actually simpler than British English both grammatically and phonetically just as Mexican Spanish is from Castillian or even South American Spanish. Cuturally too, it's easier to be an American than and Englishman. There is a lot more tradition and education involved in becoming an Englishman.<<

Well, while, yes, one could argue that much of NAE is phonologically simpler than much of English English due to vowel phoneme mergers, but even still, that is ignoring much of the underlying phonology in NAE dialects, which can be very complex, to say the least, and also, with respect to grammar, well, one must remember that, for example, the subjunctive is still quite productive in spoken NAE in a way that it most definitely is not in most spoken English English today (of course, my favorite example for this kind of thing). Of course, then, there's plenty of cultural subtleties in areas of English-speaking North America which aren't necessarily as readily obvious from the outside as those in, say, the UK, but which most definitely are still there.
Brennus   Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:24 am GMT
Kirk,

Hello! I dont' think that the concept of 'simplicity' in languages is an illusion, and I think it that it is indeed possible to quantify differences in simplicity in languages and varieties of languages.

In short, You can get a hint of how simpler Mexican Spanish is from Castillian just by listening to the way speakers of both dialects pronounce "Seville" - Mexican sev-ee-yuh vs. Castillian thay-beedzh-uh or from the phrase "That test was a real bear" - Mexican Spanish "Ese examen fue una tortura" vs. Castillian "Ese examen fue un verdadero calvario." (Lit. That test was a torture vs. That test was a real Calvary).
The Castillian is undeniably a little more complex.

Likewise, the way Americans pronounce 'temperature' (tem-pruh-cher) requires less linguistic effort than the British pronunciation (tem-per-uh-tewr). What Americans call a 'snow job' the British call a 'soft soap sell.' To me, the American way of saying it is a tad bit more simple and direct.

Take Care!

Brennus
Lazar   Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:35 am GMT
<<You can get a hint of how simpler Mexican Spanish is from Castillian just by listening to the way speakers of both dialects pronounce "Seville" - Mexican sev-ee-yuh vs. Castillian thay-beedzh-uh or from the phrase>>

Um...Spanish "Sevilla" is spelled with an <s>, and thus in neither American nor Castilian Spanish would it take [T]. Apart from the Castilian [s] being a bit more apical than the Mexican one, there's really no appreciable difference in how they'd pronounce "Sevilla".

<<Likewise, the way Americans pronounce 'temperature' (tem-pruh-cher) requires less linguistic effort than the British pronunciation (tem-per-uh-tewr).>>

[tEmp@r\@tjU@] would be a very formal and conservative British pronunciation. The Cambridge Online Dictionary gives [tEmpr\@tS@], which is identical to the American pronunciation (except of course for the non-rhotacism, which makes it even simpler).

<<What Americans call a 'snow job' the British call a 'soft soap sell.' To me, the American way of saying it is a tad bit more simple and direct.>>

How about the simplicity and directness of "lift" as opposed to "elevator"? You can't just use one contrastive example to say that one dialect is obviously so much simpler than another.
Bob   Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:58 am GMT
I don't know that you can generalize to say the grammars of languages are about the same in terms of complexity. Maybe if you look at each one in turn closely, and compare each aspect of its grammar, you might be able to say one is simpler than the another, overall. e.g. I think the complexity of the grammar in Romance languages is greater than that of English, considering the way articles, adjectives and nouns need to agree with their respective genders and count in Romance languages; This alone adds considerable complexity to a language.
Kirk   Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:09 am GMT
<<Hello! I dont' think that the concept of 'simplicity' in languages is an illusion, and I think it that it is indeed possible to quantify differences in simplicity in languages and varieties of languages.>>

The only way you can quantify simplicity across dialects and languages is by comparing subfields of languages. For instance, while one language might have a simpler morphological system than another, it may have a highly complex syntactical order not seen on the same level as in the other one. However, you could not seriously argue one language was actually simpler than the other.

<<You can get a hint of how simpler Mexican Spanish is from Castillian just by listening to the way speakers of both dialects pronounce "Seville" - Mexican sev-ee-yuh vs. Castillian thay-beedzh-uh or from the phrase>>

--Spanish-specific notes on the X-SAMPA I will use here--

[s_a] apical alveolar [s] (not an [s] followed by [a] or anything)
[B] voiced bilabial fricative
[L] palatal lateral approximant
[j\] palatal fricative

Actually, Brennus, what is called Castilian Spanish only has /T/ matching up with orthographical <z> and <ci> <ce>. Traditional Castilian would pronounce "Sevilla" as [s_ae"BiLa] (modern urban Castilian [s_ae"Bij\a]).

It *is* true some southern dialects of Iberian Spanish do interchange /T/ and /s/ (for orthographical <s> and <z> and <ci> and <ce>) but such dialects are not considered Castilian. Anyway, the standard Mexican pronunciation of "Sevilla" is [se"Bij\a]. There's nothing "simpler" about either one.

<<How about the simplicity and directness of "lift" as opposed to "elevator"? You can't just use one contrastive example to say that one dialect is obviously so much simpler than another.>>

Well put, Lazar.
Kirk   Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:27 am GMT
<<I don't know that you can generalize to say the grammars of languages are about the same in terms of complexity. Maybe if you look at each one in turn closely, and compare each aspect of its grammar, you might be able to say one is simpler than the another, overall. e.g. I think the complexity of the grammar in Romance languages is greater than that of English, considering the way articles, adjectives and nouns need to agree with their respective genders and count in Romance languages; This alone adds considerable complexity to a language.>>

Sure, but you're just looking at morphology, which is important but certainly not the only aspect in language. If you look at other aspects of language, or even grammar (such as syntax), you'll find areas which truly are more "complex" in English than Romance languages. In the end? The point is it's very hard or impossible to quantify a language being overall simpler or harder than another, especially when what any given speaker is accustomed to with their own native language. If you're a native speaker of Polish, learning Czech is going to be much easier and intuitive for you than learning Swahili or Arabic will be.

Since everyone has a native language and native-language-specific viewpoints as to what makes a language simple/easy or complex/hard, there's no true objective standard for 'simpler" vesus "complicated" in terms of overall language. This is, once again, not to mention the fact that even when it *is* generally accepted that a language is simpler in one fashion as compared to another, it assuredly won't be simpler in many other ways (as I mentioned earlier with the whole syntax/morphology thing).

As linguist John McWhorter humorously put it, every language has a so-called "dammit!" point--you're sailing along thinking "wow, this is really easy. I love how this language does/doesn't do _____" but in the end you're going to reach that point where you simply can't comprehend why any language would be structured as seemingly complex as the one you've encountered is in some given area.

Basically, there's no way to say that one language/dialect is simpler or more complex than another.
Brennus   Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:28 am GMT
Kirk,

I meant to say "Ese examen fue un auténtico calvario" (That exam was a veritable Calvary), Castillian; however the Mexican form "... fue una tortura" is simpler by any stretch of the imagination.

Let me tell you a little more about my background:

I've known many Mexicans and South Americans personally over the years and some of them have indeed told me that Mexicans have a "simpler" way of saying some things than the way they would be said in Spain or even Peru. A Mexican co-worker of mine once referred to the Spanish taught in American high schools as "White Man's Spanish" and not representative of what most Mexicans speak. I'm sure he was right.
Kirk   Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:46 am GMT
<<Let me tell you a little more about my background:

I've known many Mexicans and South Americans personally over the years>>

As have I. I grew up having a lot of Spanish-speaking friends, have spent time in Mexico, and lived in Argentina for several months. In addition to having studied Spanish continually since I was 12, I've also learned a lot about Spanish phonetics and phonology and overall structure in my linguistics classes (including one I happen to be taking now, "Structure of Spanish"), so I don't mean to be pompous at all, but I'm *fully* aware of what I'm talking about.

<<and some of them have indeed told me that Mexicans have a "simpler" way of saying some things than the way they would be said in Spain or even Peru.>>

Folk-linguistical accounts of how language is, while indeed interesting, hold no credibility as to describing how a language actually works. What you wrote means nothing.

<<A Mexican co-worker of mine once referred to the Spanish taught in American high schools as "White Man's Spanish" and not representative of what most Mexicans speak. I'm sure he was right.>>

Perhaps true. But irrelevant.

Brennus, one of the truly unfortunate things about your posts is that they never fully respond to clearly thought-out posts directed towards you. If you'll scroll up you'll notice I responded exactly and relevantly to what you posted on and that what you mentioned here was actually largely irrelevant. Brennus, if I take the time to directly and coherently respond to your posts (as I did above) please at least return half the favor and do some of that on your part.
Larissa   Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:25 pm GMT
Anne i guess you're right british english is easier to understand than the american one cause british pple speak more slowly than americans ( in my opinion) personally i prefer american accent but british accent is nice too (sorry for the mistakes lol i don't speak much english)
Heehee   Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:32 pm GMT
Hmm, how odd, most of the Filipinos here in Hong Kong seem to have an accent that's closer to American than British.

Um... there's a logical relationship between the noun "English", the adjective "English", and the noun "England". Plus, any world history textbook found in Bhutan or Ghana would tell you that the United States grew out of former British colonies. Given all that, how could statistics confuse anyone? Statistics only tell you about the current situation, not history. Pouah, take a course in Critical Thinking :-p.

As for whether Americans or Britons are faster speakers, I've noticed that each nationality thinks that the other speaks faster!
Heehee   Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:37 pm GMT
Let's throw out some other questions...

Where was Spanish first spoken? Where was Portuguese first spoken? Hmmm... a third of the world's Spanish speakers live in Mexico, and half of the world's Portuguese speakers live in Brazil... now, I wonder.
anne   Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:55 pm GMT
im one of those filipinos who speak english with american accent actually.. maybe its because we watch hollywood movies not british movies, lol!!

but though i speak american accent, still when i hear a british speaking, i can understand each word right after it was said. unlike when an american is speaking i sometimes miss some words.

maybe larissa is right saying that british speaks slower than americans.
Pete   Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:55 pm GMT
<<Anne,

Re: "as a filipino, i can say that british english is easier to understand than the americans."

Maybe so but I think that you're in the minority. American English is actually simpler than British English both grammatically and phonetically just as Mexican Spanish is from Castillian or even South American Spanish. Cuturally too, it's easier to be an American than and Englishman. There is a lot more tradition and education involved in becoming an Englishman.>>

May I have an opinion here?

Someone, overthere said. If American English is more widely spoken all over the world, then why it isn't the Standard English variety? Well, I'll try answer your question. American English can't be the standard English even if 90% of the people spoke it, you know why? because the English engendered this language, then the written variety and a determined spoken variety from that country is supposed to be the Standard, but of course the existence of many other important varieties is understood and respectable.

Now, quite a few people speak a Standard variety of a particular language because they use their local dialect. Nobody is actually obliged to speak certain accent just because it's the Standard, it's just a dialect not better, not worse, but only different that's all. If you like certain accent, perfect! if you don't just try not to hear it or avoid speaking it.

The variety of English I learnt, Received Pronunciaton English, was easier to me than American English. In fact, I was studying American for 1 year, then switched to "British" English. Some of the RP English vowels are really closer to Spanish vowels than those from American English, so it was easier to me mastering RP English vowels since Spanish is my mother tongue. And even more important, due to the rothicity of American, we Spanish speaking people have a very hard time when trying to get the "r" sounds right. Because of our very rolled "r" Spanish speaking people cannot help saying "very" with a bit of a rolled "r". When I discovered that in RP English you hardly ever pronounce "r" (you don't pronounce it at all unless you have a vowel after it, and there are some more little, easy-to-learn rules) It was quite easy to get it right. Also there is this problem with flapped "t" and "d" like in "city" said in an American accent, this flap, as they call it, is very similar to Spanish tapped "r" sound (like in "cara", "parar"), so for us, at the beggining it seems inconceivable and extremely bizarre to pronounce "d" and "t" like our spanish "r". And in RP English you always have those beautiful and clear "T" and "D", difficult at the beggining but easier to pronunce since it sounds a little bit more natural to us.

And it's very nice of you guys, using Spanish like to make people understand English issues. But there is a great difference actually.
Everybody claims that all grammatical forms used by Native English Speakers are entirely good and correct, and that nobody should judge any dialectal variety with any wrong patron of correctness imposed by grammarians and teachers. Well that's OK, but you even mention Spanish as an example, making comparisons between Peninsular Spanish and Latin American Spanish. Saying that any from is correct if used by a wide group of people, for example someone mentioned: "delante de ti" vs "delante tuyo" an Argentine version, and in Peru we even have "adelante de ti", all equivalents of "in front of you". Well, I shall let you know that, you are wrong about Spanish. Even if the entire Spanish speaking world uses certain expresion like "delante tuyo", even Spain, that doesn't mean it's acceptable or correct. It's not correct. Since we have our Language Academy and our "ROYAL ACADEMY OF THE SPANISH LANGUAGE'S DICTIONARY", our dictionary has all of our correct words, and specifies which grammar structure is correct and what is not. Anything not being in our Dictionary or recognised by the Royal Academy, is incorrect, even if an entire country uses that form. And it will be so until a member of the Royal Academy proposes certain phrase or word to become correct, they debate about it, and then it becomes correct.

So there is this great difference since there's no such thing as a Academy of the English language, which probably makes English a bit more versatile than Spanish. And well Latin American Spanish is not and will never be the Standard variety of Spanish, but if you decide to learn it, well, good for you, and it's you're problem if you break into Latin mistakes.

Thanks for reading, and sorry it's a bit long.