BrE or AmE in your country??

Apropos North Dakota: I surprised a customer a few weeks back by asking her state of origin. I told her that her dialect sounded like North Dakota or perhaps Northern Minnesota; it turned out that she was from Fargo.

There is a significant difference in dialect between North and South Dakota, as one poster has already acknowledged.

Are there any differences between North Dakota and Montana, Idaho, and Washington accent-wise? I have a hard time telling them apart.

I don't have enough information about MT, ID, or eastern WA accents to offer an informed opinion.

I do work with a young man from ID, who speaks in a General American "accent", but he has spent a lot of time in other places, too. A much older woman from ID with whom I worked spoke in a watered-down Rocky Mountain accent, so it might be safe to say that the language there is changing.

In addition, Seattle "accents" are very much General American, but I have never met anybody from Eastern Washington, so I can't say.

I wish I could give you more information. Maybe others reading this post can shed some light on the matter.

Eastern Washington accents sound the same as Western Washington ones, except some people from Eastern WA have the pin-pen merger. In general though, it's well nigh impossible to tell them apart. I think the main difference is more the Northern vs. Southern WA. The northern part has more Canadian influence, and the Southern part has more Oregon and California influence. I'm from the northern part and I say words like "bag" and "tomorrow" like people from BC, for example, whereas most people in the southern part of the state say them like Oregonians and Californians. The WA accent doesn't sound much like the stereotypical ND accent though.

The Americanisation of British English is far more noticeable in vocabulary than spelling or grammar. For example, young Britons are just as likely to say "truck" as "lorry", and "private school" instead of the long-winded "independent school" or the ever-so-confusing "public school". In spelling, however, "colour" is still "colour" and "centre" is still "centre". As a medical student, I have only ever heard "in hospital" and never "in THE hospital".

The same trend carries over to English taught in Hong Kong. Spelling and grammar are exclusively British, but vocabulary and even pronunciation are full of Americanisms.

P.S. I cannot imagine the General American accent ever finding popularity within the British Isles, so the 100+ accents of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland will in all likelihood retain their uniqueness for the foreseeable future.

My teacher told me that americans are retarded because they genetically are, but because they speak english too. Is there a connection between the language and the american aggressivity, retardness and ignorance?

Maybe your teacher is retarded.

Anybody who would proffer such a sweeping generalization has to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

**The Americanisation of British English is far more noticeable in vocabulary than spelling or grammar. For example, young Britons are just as likely to say "truck" as "lorry", and "private school" instead of the long-winded "independent school" or the ever-so-confusing "public school". In spelling, however, "colour" is still "colour" and "centre" is still "centre". As a medical student, I have only ever heard "in hospital" and never "in THE hospital". **

Yes, the Americanisation of British English is far more apparent vocally than it is written. But the recent addition of the internet and microsoft is changing this.

I am studying Dietetics and 99% of the medical and chemistry books I use are American written. Even one I am using right now, which was published by the blooming Oxford University Press is written in American English!!! My point being the majority of foreign students I study with are writing in American English and many of my fellow Britons are also adopting AmE, and it is understandable why - as a student it is far more likely to come across AmE than British English even in Britain!! If I wasn't so conscious of it I would probably be adopting many Americanism's into my written (as well as speech) as well.

A prime example is the word oesophagus which I see written, even by my lecturers (many of whom are Doctors) as esopohagus. The sudden abandonment of 'Yoghurt" for "Yogurt" is another example. Offically, American English has very little impact on writting here, but I caught my little (13 year old) sister spelling centre as center recently. This would never ever happened 10 years ago or more You just never came across American spellings when I was at school. Like I have repeatedly said, officially, maybe we still spell certain words the British way but this is starting to change. Sure, we will always retain some spellings that are specific to our brand of English but it is dwindling.

By the way, the British meaning for Public School makes ALOT of sense. Sadly, the overwhelming majority seem to favour using 'private school' instead, which yes, on the face of it would seem more logical - until you know why we called public schools public schools. Here's a hint, public schools in Britain are MORE public than 'normal' comprehensives.

That should read esophagus. My apologies for the spelling mistakes - as ever I really should read my messages before I post, especially given the subject matter. Sorry.

Pub Lunch,

You make a good point about coming across American English more often than British English in published materials even in the UK.

When I was 5 or 6, at nursery school in Hong Kong, I used to think that "centre" referred to the place (e.g. "shopping centre") and "center" to the concept (e.g. "center of a circle"). I would see "centre" everywhere on signs but "center" in my English books, most of which were written in the US. In primary school, our textbooks were mostly British, so that was when I began to use "centre" in all contexts.

I've heard a similar story about Canadian children learning "zee" (for z) in nursery school, under the influence of Sesame Street and American educational materials, then switching over to "zed" after being corrected by their primary school teachers.

I can imagine certain spelling differences persisting for longer than others. "Oe" and "ae" spellings will be the first to go, in my opinion. "Fetus" (as opposed to "foetus") is already the official spelling in the British medical community. As you pointed out, "esophagus" is also commonly written as such in the UK, and it mightn't be long before that spelling is accorded official status. "Manoeuvre" is such an awkward spelling (except in French) that I won't be surprised if future generations of schoolchildren should rebel against it.

However, I don't think "color" or "honor" will ever find widespread acceptance in the UK - at least not within my lifetime, or my grandchildren's. "Aluminium" and "aluminum" reflect pronunciation, so as long as we continue to say "aluminium", we will always spell it that way too.

As for "public schools"... I understand how they historically came to be known as such but I don't grasp how they're "more public than normal comprehensives". Care to explain?

The only thing I can think of (in the modern-day context) is that "public schools" are open to anyone who can afford them and pass an exam whilst comprehensives are open to people who live within a certain area. Hence, both are arguably equally restrictive and exclusive, but that doesn't make independent schools "more public" than comprehensives.

PubLunch, I always thought the term "private school" more intuitive, but perhaps I don't understand all the dynamics of your "public schools".

We use the term "private schools" because they are not administered by any local government entity, but rather a private entity, usually some kind of for-profit business. This falls under the same logic as "public transportation", etc.

By the way, PubLunch, what's the deal about your numbering system for floors in a building? Not wishing to be perceived as any kind of flag-waver, I think in this case our numbering system really does seem more accurate.

(For those who don't know, in Europe the first floor in a building doesn't "count"; that is, the third floor in a building is called the "second floor" over there.)

About the European floor numbering system...

It makes sense if you look at it from an arithmetic perspective. 0 is "neutral ground", anything above zero is positive, anything below zero is negative. Applying the same reasoning to floor levels: the ground floor is at the level of the earth's surface and the first floor is one level above the earth's surface. In fact, in British lifts (elevators), the basement, ground floor and first floor are frequently labelled -1, 0 and 1.

Let's assume that some lunatic European dictator decided to standardise the "level" or "floor" as unit of measurement (say, 2.5 metres). In a building that adheres exactly to the standardised dimensions, the first floor would be exactly "one level from the ground".

That's just my personal take. I have a very bad habit of making things more technical, complicated and than they should be, so please excuse me. Of course the American/East Asian system makes sense too... I was only trying to explain the European system in a (what I perceive as) logical way, but I'm sure anyone can come up with an equally good argument in favour of the American/East Asian system.