In Stu Jay Raj's post, I was amazed to learn a new word - 'faucet'.
Should British/Australians adopt American spellings?
>><< Doesn't basic common sense dictate that America, with a larger, more mixed population, and larger literary base, has more linguistic inertia, and thus is less likely to be the cause of divergence? Or do you think that there is some magical quality to the British Isles which makes its inhabitants immune to the linguistic drift that appears in every other part of the world? >>
Larger, more mixed population: This proves the opposite - if you have so many immigrants, which is what I presume you're referring to by mixed, then your version of English is bound to be mixed, and full of loanwords. So no, I don't think this justifies the request that the British adopt American spelling rules.<<
That is not true at all. The only places where there are any signs at all of such are only the places with the most extreme degree of immigration from a single non-English-speaking ethnic group with the most limited degree of contact with native English-speakers, and where a particular immigrant ethnic group had such significant predominance population-wise so as actually leave a lasting impact over any other group. Only a few areas in the US really fit these qualities, particularly the Upper Midwest (German and Scandinavian influence), Louisiana (Acadian influence), parts of Pennsylvania (German influence), and parts of Texas (German influence).
But the matter is that even in such areas, in the general population such influence has been very limited, generally being limited to pronunciation, particular forms and usages such as the classically Midwestern "come with", and a limited quantity of loanwords. More intense non-English influence was found in some places, such as in parts of Pennsylvania and the far north of the Upper Midwest, in the past, but for the most part such has been dying off (albeit at varying rates). In other places, such has already died generations ago, such as in more southern parts of the Upper Midwest, where German stopped being transmitted roughly three generations ago and which was very heavily Americanized two generations ago amongst the ethnic German population.
Larger, more mixed population: This proves the opposite - if you have so many immigrants, which is what I presume you're referring to by mixed, then your version of English is bound to be mixed, and full of loanwords. So no, I don't think this justifies the request that the British adopt American spelling rules.<<
That is not true at all. The only places where there are any signs at all of such are only the places with the most extreme degree of immigration from a single non-English-speaking ethnic group with the most limited degree of contact with native English-speakers, and where a particular immigrant ethnic group had such significant predominance population-wise so as actually leave a lasting impact over any other group. Only a few areas in the US really fit these qualities, particularly the Upper Midwest (German and Scandinavian influence), Louisiana (Acadian influence), parts of Pennsylvania (German influence), and parts of Texas (German influence).
But the matter is that even in such areas, in the general population such influence has been very limited, generally being limited to pronunciation, particular forms and usages such as the classically Midwestern "come with", and a limited quantity of loanwords. More intense non-English influence was found in some places, such as in parts of Pennsylvania and the far north of the Upper Midwest, in the past, but for the most part such has been dying off (albeit at varying rates). In other places, such has already died generations ago, such as in more southern parts of the Upper Midwest, where German stopped being transmitted roughly three generations ago and which was very heavily Americanized two generations ago amongst the ethnic German population.
>>In other places, such has already died generations ago, such as in more southern parts of the Upper Midwest, where German stopped being transmitted roughly three generations ago and which was very heavily Americanized two generations ago amongst the ethnic German population.<<
There are always of course exceptions to this; for instance, my fiancée's maternal grandmother spoke German in addition to English from a young age, even though her own (ethnically German) parents were already English-monolingual, as they died when she was still very young and hence she was taken care of by a grandparent of hers who did speak German.
There are always of course exceptions to this; for instance, my fiancée's maternal grandmother spoke German in addition to English from a young age, even though her own (ethnically German) parents were already English-monolingual, as they died when she was still very young and hence she was taken care of by a grandparent of hers who did speak German.
<< Do you have cites for your claims that English orthography was fully standardized prior to the colonization of the Americas, and that all orthographic divergence between America and England since there has been due to Americans deviating from previously established norms? Or do you simply assume that your prejudices must reflect reality? >
I have no claims for any such cites, as this is not what I was claiming. I was merely claiming that British English was here before American English, therefore it's completely unreasonable even to suggest the idea that we should change to mirror what the Americans changed the language to. >
But such a claim requires that the British English of today be the same as the British English that existed before American English; otherwise you are simply engaging in equivocation.
<Are you a native speaker? It's commonly known that one can use 'we' to refer to ones country, the people of the country, as well as just oneself.>
Which was my point. You are clearly using it in a metaphorical sense. And it's not even in the sense of "the people of my country", as you claim it is, but rather "the people who lived in my country several centuries ago". Your argument is nonsensical. We can split English speakers into three groups: old English, new English, and American. The old English group was here first, and split into the other two groups. The new English and the American groups have been here exactly the same time as each other. Your argument boils down to pretending that simply because the old English and the new English are both called simply "English", they are the same group.
<Larger, more mixed population: This proves the opposite - if you have so many immigrants, which is what I presume you're referring to by mixed, then your version of English is bound to be mixed, and full of loanwords.>
No, when I said "mixed", I was referring to how Britain is full of linguistically isolated pockets. Take a solid block of wood and a pile of woodchips: which blows around in the wind more?
<Larger literary base: Don't make me laugh! Quantity isn't quality. Shakespeare was a well-known American, was he? Haha!>
That's exactly my point. In an aristocratic society, fluctuations in a small group of people can have large effects. If Shakespeare had had a lisp, talking like thith would probably be now perceived as Posh. Your snobbish attitude is exactly the sort of force that drives linguistic fluctuations.
I have no claims for any such cites, as this is not what I was claiming. I was merely claiming that British English was here before American English, therefore it's completely unreasonable even to suggest the idea that we should change to mirror what the Americans changed the language to. >
But such a claim requires that the British English of today be the same as the British English that existed before American English; otherwise you are simply engaging in equivocation.
<Are you a native speaker? It's commonly known that one can use 'we' to refer to ones country, the people of the country, as well as just oneself.>
Which was my point. You are clearly using it in a metaphorical sense. And it's not even in the sense of "the people of my country", as you claim it is, but rather "the people who lived in my country several centuries ago". Your argument is nonsensical. We can split English speakers into three groups: old English, new English, and American. The old English group was here first, and split into the other two groups. The new English and the American groups have been here exactly the same time as each other. Your argument boils down to pretending that simply because the old English and the new English are both called simply "English", they are the same group.
<Larger, more mixed population: This proves the opposite - if you have so many immigrants, which is what I presume you're referring to by mixed, then your version of English is bound to be mixed, and full of loanwords.>
No, when I said "mixed", I was referring to how Britain is full of linguistically isolated pockets. Take a solid block of wood and a pile of woodchips: which blows around in the wind more?
<Larger literary base: Don't make me laugh! Quantity isn't quality. Shakespeare was a well-known American, was he? Haha!>
That's exactly my point. In an aristocratic society, fluctuations in a small group of people can have large effects. If Shakespeare had had a lisp, talking like thith would probably be now perceived as Posh. Your snobbish attitude is exactly the sort of force that drives linguistic fluctuations.
<< But such a claim requires that the British English of today be the same as the British English that existed before American English; otherwise you are simply engaging in equivocation. >>
The British English of today is derived from the version of British English spoken in Britain before the Americans left, as much as the Lithuanian spoken in Lithuania is derived from the Lithuanian spoken in Lithuania hundreds of years ago. American English, however, branched off and evolved along another route, changing quite a lot from British English, therefore seperating itself.
<< Which was my point. You are clearly using it in a metaphorical sense. And it's not even in the sense of "the people of my country", as you claim it is, but rather "the people who lived in my country several centuries ago". Your argument is nonsensical. We can split English speakers into three groups: old English, new English, and American. The old English group was here first, and split into the other two groups. The new English and the American groups have been here exactly the same time as each other. Your argument boils down to pretending that simply because the old English and the new English are both called simply "English", they are the same group. >>
The people who lived in my country several hundred years ago are the people of my country.
You can split speakers into as many groups as you like; in fact, you could even have a group of English speakers who lived between 1824 and 1852 - however really, there are two groups. British English - this includes what it was several centuries ago and what it has naturally evolved into - British English. The other group is American English (we're leaving out Indian English, Scottish, Australian English etc. for simplicity - we're not talking about them.) American English broke off from the norm and evolved along its own path, in a colony, and eventually, an ex-colony - a country of its own. So, to use your expression - Just because British English and American English share the same language name, English, that doesn't mean to say that they're the same at all - they're a different dialect, differing more than some Chinese dialects.
<< No, when I said "mixed", I was referring to how Britain is full of linguistically isolated pockets. >>
Name a place that isn't! Name a language that can't be split into regional accents and dialects! But there's still a standard; it's called RP.
<< If Shakespeare had had a lisp, talking like thith would probably be now perceived as Posh. Your snobbish attitude is exactly the sort of force that drives linguistic fluctuations. >>
Very unlikely; Shakespeare was a playwright, famous for the plays he wrote. He didn't peform them, nor was he famous for how he spoke. And 'posh' is a rather lower-class term, used to mock the higher classes, is it not? I presume you mean well-spoken.
My snobbish attitude? How am I snobbish? I'm just anti the idea of the alternative dialectal spelling rules of a broken-off ex-colony of Britain becoming the international standard for the whole language!
I'm all for linguistic fluctuations - but as long as it is recognised that that is precisely what they are: fluctuations. Without these, we'd all be speaking the same language! Why are the Romance languages all different? They were all Latin once. They'd all still be Latin if as soon as Latin started to break off, they were forced to observe a single set of spelling rules / to speak a single dialect. And it would be even more absurd if these rules were taken not from Latin, but from one of the dialects recently branched off from it. So, why should we do this to British English, hmm?
British and American are seperate. The Americans fought the War of Independence to be seperate from us. Why try to make our languages the same?
The British English of today is derived from the version of British English spoken in Britain before the Americans left, as much as the Lithuanian spoken in Lithuania is derived from the Lithuanian spoken in Lithuania hundreds of years ago. American English, however, branched off and evolved along another route, changing quite a lot from British English, therefore seperating itself.
<< Which was my point. You are clearly using it in a metaphorical sense. And it's not even in the sense of "the people of my country", as you claim it is, but rather "the people who lived in my country several centuries ago". Your argument is nonsensical. We can split English speakers into three groups: old English, new English, and American. The old English group was here first, and split into the other two groups. The new English and the American groups have been here exactly the same time as each other. Your argument boils down to pretending that simply because the old English and the new English are both called simply "English", they are the same group. >>
The people who lived in my country several hundred years ago are the people of my country.
You can split speakers into as many groups as you like; in fact, you could even have a group of English speakers who lived between 1824 and 1852 - however really, there are two groups. British English - this includes what it was several centuries ago and what it has naturally evolved into - British English. The other group is American English (we're leaving out Indian English, Scottish, Australian English etc. for simplicity - we're not talking about them.) American English broke off from the norm and evolved along its own path, in a colony, and eventually, an ex-colony - a country of its own. So, to use your expression - Just because British English and American English share the same language name, English, that doesn't mean to say that they're the same at all - they're a different dialect, differing more than some Chinese dialects.
<< No, when I said "mixed", I was referring to how Britain is full of linguistically isolated pockets. >>
Name a place that isn't! Name a language that can't be split into regional accents and dialects! But there's still a standard; it's called RP.
<< If Shakespeare had had a lisp, talking like thith would probably be now perceived as Posh. Your snobbish attitude is exactly the sort of force that drives linguistic fluctuations. >>
Very unlikely; Shakespeare was a playwright, famous for the plays he wrote. He didn't peform them, nor was he famous for how he spoke. And 'posh' is a rather lower-class term, used to mock the higher classes, is it not? I presume you mean well-spoken.
My snobbish attitude? How am I snobbish? I'm just anti the idea of the alternative dialectal spelling rules of a broken-off ex-colony of Britain becoming the international standard for the whole language!
I'm all for linguistic fluctuations - but as long as it is recognised that that is precisely what they are: fluctuations. Without these, we'd all be speaking the same language! Why are the Romance languages all different? They were all Latin once. They'd all still be Latin if as soon as Latin started to break off, they were forced to observe a single set of spelling rules / to speak a single dialect. And it would be even more absurd if these rules were taken not from Latin, but from one of the dialects recently branched off from it. So, why should we do this to British English, hmm?
British and American are seperate. The Americans fought the War of Independence to be seperate from us. Why try to make our languages the same?
Caspian, you are like an Italian claiming that the language spoken in modern Italy is not Italian but Latin since it naturally evolved from Latin in the same place that Latin was originally spoken. You have to face the facts and realize that the language you speak is just as degenerate as American English. Come back to us when you learn to speak like Shakespeare, or even better, Bede.
"In Stu Jay Raj's post, I was amazed to learn a new word - 'faucet'.
Now you know what immense fun we always had with Farrah Fawcett Majors' name.
Now you know what immense fun we always had with Farrah Fawcett Majors' name.
<< Caspian, you are like an Italian claiming that the language spoken in modern Italy is not Italian but Latin since it naturally evolved from Latin in the same place that Latin was originally spoken. You have to face the facts and realize that the language you speak is just as degenerate as American English. Come back to us when you learn to speak like Shakespeare, or even better, Bede. >>
Actually, you'll see that that's precisely what I'm not claiming, if you read my previous post.
And you've made the common mistake in using Shakespeare's speech as an example. How he spoke was probably the same as other upper-class people. It's his writing he's famous for, not his speech.
Actually, you'll see that that's precisely what I'm not claiming, if you read my previous post.
And you've made the common mistake in using Shakespeare's speech as an example. How he spoke was probably the same as other upper-class people. It's his writing he's famous for, not his speech.
And yet what comes out of a faucet is still tapwater, Caspian. We're a fun bunch!;)
Sadly, you can't blame our use of "faucet" instead of "tap" on some nameless non-English-speaking immigrant; according to Answers.com, faucet came to us from Middle English by way of French, and hence, was obviously in use in England before our founding.
Most of the changes in vocabulary between the US and the UK aren't the result of immigration, but rather of emigration -- we brought over old words from the UK that later died an ignominious death in the old country, but were preserved here, or we eschewed certain terms that remain popular there. There are a few words that we retained but gradually altered in meaning, like creek and biscuit and frontier (it always amuses me to hear about things like the "Franco-German frontier", since to me the word means something like "wild country, far from civilization", and not "border", and I recall the border area between France and Germany looking pretty darn tame!)
Sure, there are a few terms Americans have adopted from other languages, like cookie from Dutch and pinto from Spanish. And it was a no-brainer to adopt Indian terms for new animals and plants, like raccoon and skunk and hickory, that simply didn't exist in the UK -- the Australians did the same with their flora and fauna. Sometimes we just perpetuated an earlier screw-up, as when we forgot that Europe also has big-nosed deer and adopted the Indian term "moose", and then misappropriated the existing word for the same animal, "elk", to refer to a completely different species (which, to add to the confusion, is actually a variety of the red deer that is native to the UK!) And sometimes we even stayed truer to our roots than you all did -- can you argue that "eggplant" is a far more truly English word than "aubergine"? ;)
Most of the changes in vocabulary between the US and the UK aren't the result of immigration, but rather of emigration -- we brought over old words from the UK that later died an ignominious death in the old country, but were preserved here, or we eschewed certain terms that remain popular there. There are a few words that we retained but gradually altered in meaning, like creek and biscuit and frontier (it always amuses me to hear about things like the "Franco-German frontier", since to me the word means something like "wild country, far from civilization", and not "border", and I recall the border area between France and Germany looking pretty darn tame!)
Sure, there are a few terms Americans have adopted from other languages, like cookie from Dutch and pinto from Spanish. And it was a no-brainer to adopt Indian terms for new animals and plants, like raccoon and skunk and hickory, that simply didn't exist in the UK -- the Australians did the same with their flora and fauna. Sometimes we just perpetuated an earlier screw-up, as when we forgot that Europe also has big-nosed deer and adopted the Indian term "moose", and then misappropriated the existing word for the same animal, "elk", to refer to a completely different species (which, to add to the confusion, is actually a variety of the red deer that is native to the UK!) And sometimes we even stayed truer to our roots than you all did -- can you argue that "eggplant" is a far more truly English word than "aubergine"? ;)
<Eggplant and fall are more original than aubergine or autumn.>
Those of you trying to claim that one orthography is better than the other are realy quite pathetic!
Eggplant and Aubergine are both as good as each other, as are Autumn and Fall.
Stop bing so petty!
Those of you trying to claim that one orthography is better than the other are realy quite pathetic!
Eggplant and Aubergine are both as good as each other, as are Autumn and Fall.
Stop bing so petty!
Orthography is just a fancy word for spelling, hon. So yes, both are spelled correctly. The point we are making is that "aubergine" and "autumn" both seem to have been borrowed from other languages and are used preferentially by the British, while "eggplant" and "fall" are wholly of English origin and are commonly preferred by Americans to denote the same things. So you know, that was some irony for ya....
(Although I should point out that fall and autumn are interchangeable in the US, even if fall is more commonly used, and while we don't ever call eggplants aubergines, we do use the word aubergine to denote a certain shade of purple.)
(Although I should point out that fall and autumn are interchangeable in the US, even if fall is more commonly used, and while we don't ever call eggplants aubergines, we do use the word aubergine to denote a certain shade of purple.)
I don't see why we should adopt American spellings. We aren't even American.
If the Americans wish to have standardised spelling then they should adopt British spelling.
If the Americans wish to have standardised spelling then they should adopt British spelling.
Interestingly some of the US 'changes' were underway in the UK before things got set in stone in trms of spelling there. Hence "emperor" not "emperour". What would be really nice would be if there could be an etymologically-based reform of all English, not just keeping the 'de facto' hotch-potch we've ended up with. For example "you" should be spelt "ew", and "high" and "height" should be spelt the same way! With "centre" and "colour" it should just be made sure it's all done one way. "Emperour" if it's "colour" and "emperor" if it's "color".