"An" historical...

<<Nor am I a supremacist, I don't think that in Britain, we are any better than those in America,>>

You just said that Americans are incorrect for saying "zee". And then you said, "You can't have it both ways; either American English is a dialect (British came first, all the evolution took place in Britain) or the American 'zee' is incorrect," which is just incoherent babble, because everybody acknowledges that American English is a dialect.

<<however I get fed up when Americans assume that their usage is the only correct way,>>

Nobody here asserted such a thing! That's nothing more than a strawman.

<<so I'm countering it as best and extremely as I can.>>

By being just as ignorant as the people you criticize? Yep, you're a troll.

<<All I'm saying is that the English language originated in ENGLAND. That's why it's called ENGLISH, not AMERICAN.>>

Wow, that's profound.

<<What you speak in America is not wrong, but if you're going to call it the same language as that we speak here in Britain, and you're going to say that the American model of the language is the correct standard, then I can but disagree.>>

Again, what are you talking about? Nobody here has asserted that American English is superior - you're just coming off as paranoid. English has multiple dialects, and each dialect (or dialectal group) has its own standards.

<<Dialects of the same language differ, but in my eyes, the original language originated here in England, therefore British RP is the correct standard for the language.>>

So you're asserting that British English is superior to American English. No, there is no single "correct standard" for English; English is a multi-polar language and it has multiple standards. RP is a standard dialect in England, and General American is a standard dialect in the United States.

<<It's easy to dismiss somebody as a troll because you can't counter their argument.>>

It's even easier to dismiss them as a troll when they have no coherent argument.

<<The real test of intelligence is to argue intelligently.>>

Once again, I am awed by your profundity.

I'd love to continue this argument for pages and pages, but we're all restricted by the forum's (nonsensical) "10 posts per IP address per day rule", and I don't want to waste all of mine on this inane discussion.

Caspian--not meaning to rudely interrupt--you assert that English in England--and British RP in particular --is the correct English. I don't necessarily dispute this, but this assertion does beg an obvious question: If English English is the preferred standard, why does the use of "an" before "an hotel", ad. nauseum., fuel a sense of irritation? The use of "an" is far more prevalent there than here...

<<I assure you that I'm not a troll. Nor am I a supremacist>>

Well, you certainly are. At least, you come across as one, based solely on your latest posts.

<<I don't think that in Britain, we are any better than those in America, however I get fed up when Americans assume that their usage is the only correct way, such as 'toward' instead of 'towards', so I'm countering it as best and extremely as I can.>>

I don't think anyone in his right mind has ever stated anything remotely resembling this. Some people claimed similar things in connection with standard English, be it British or American, but I can't recall anyone saying that American English is the only correct way of speaking, (except for trolls, of course).

<<All I'm saying is that the English language originated in ENGLAND. That's why it's called ENGLISH, not AMERICAN.>>

Yes, it did. That's the reason why it is referred to as "English" and not "American" or "British".

<<What you speak in America is not wrong, but if you're going to call it the same language as that we speak here in Britain, and you're going to say that the American model of the language is the correct standard, then I can but disagree.>>

I beg your pardon? Sorry, but I can't really get your drift. Do you assume that American English and British English must be treated as two separate languages if you wish to consider both of them correct?

<<Dialects of the same language differ, but in my eyes, the original language originated here in England, therefore British RP is the correct standard for the language.>>

The original English language, if you wish to call it that way, is not identical with today's English English RP. For example, it used to be rhotic, whereas contemporary RP is non-rhotic. So you could easily claim that General American is more "correct" than RP, couldn't you? And still, you wouldn't be right in thinking so.

<<You may disagree all you like, and I certainly will as well. It's easy to dismiss somebody as a troll because you can't counter their argument. The real test of intelligence is to argue intelligently.>>

Dismissing you as a troll is certainly a bit of an overreaction, but thinking that you are not the only one in here who can argue intelligently isn't that far from the truth. Probably you aren't the one who argues intelligently at all.

P.S.: I am a continental European who speaks British English (Standard English with a near-RP accent, if you like). So I can hardly be accused of being partial to American English or Americans in general.

Lazar - I also don't have the energy to reply to your post. I'm just going to argue with you, you will argue with me. I know I'm right, you know you're right, so arguing is pointless. I'll hold m opinion, you can hold yours, even if they do differ. I'll just say you'd make a good writer for Private Eye.

<< (except for trolls, of course) >> It's these trolls to whom I am referring.

<< I beg your pardon? Sorry, but I can't really get your drift. Do you assume that American English and British English must be treated as two separate languages if you wish to consider both of them correct? >>

Yes, either this, or a dialectal standard for either language.

<< The original English language, if you wish to call it that way, is not identical with today's English English RP. For example, it used to be rhotic, whereas contemporary RP is non-rhotic. So you could easily claim that General American is more "correct" than RP, couldn't you? And still, you wouldn't be right in thinking so. >>

No, you certainly wouldn't.

<< Dismissing you as a troll is certainly a bit of an overreaction, but thinking that you are not the only one in here who can argue intelligently isn't that far from the truth. Probably you aren't the one who argues intelligently at all. >>

Well, Lazar certainly isn't. He's twisting my argument to make me sound nonsensical.

<< P.S.: I am a continental European who speaks British English (Standard English with a near-RP accent, if you like). So I can hardly be accused of being partial to American English or Americans in general. >>

I also speak British English with a near-RP accent, however I don't think that I am biased because of this. I am just stating what I see as fact.

***I also speak British English with a near-RP accent****

Ha! I love it! I really do. I, too, speak British English with an RP accent only mine isn't "near" anything - it's a pure bred Edinburgh Scottish version.

The term "British English" really is so very misleading - many people abroad, more especially in the United States of America, assume that British English is the cut glass accent of the Southern English English - the perfect tones of RP right from the heart of the verdant pasturelands of the English shires, or ultra smart Mayfair or South Kensington or Hampstead Garden suburb.

It simply is not. Mine is every bit British English as is theirs. So there!

No hard feelings - have a couple of mince pies and a glass of mulled wine! Warm the cockles of your heart at my expense.....

<<Ha! I love it! I really do. I, too, speak British English with an RP accent only mine isn't "near" anything - it's a pure bred Edinburgh Scottish version.>>

That's why I prefer the term "English English RP" to "British RP". The latter could be Scottish RP as well. :-)

<<Yes, either this, or a dialectal standard for either language.>>

General American and Received Pronunciation are two dialectal standards of the same language. This fact is so obvious, self-evident and universally acknowledged that no sensible or informed person would dispute it. Different languages, in general, lack mutual comprehensibility; the differences between GA and RP are so slight that they pale in comparison to other instances of dialectal diversity in the world.

<<Well, Lazar certainly isn't. He's twisting my argument to make me sound nonsensical.>>

Let's examine what you've written, shall we?

<<The Americans are incorrect for saying 'zee'. You can't have it both ways; either American English is a dialect (British came first, all the evolution took place in Britain) or the American 'zee' is incorrect.>>

I characterized this as incoherent babble because, frankly, it makes no sense. First you assert that Americans are incorrect for following their undisputed dialectal standard, which is a radical and unprecedented claim; and then you present this supposed choice that is of no relevance to anyone's argument here. I've made it pretty clear that American English is a dialect (there's absolutely nothing else it could be), and that American "zee" is correct (to say otherwise would be a truly extraordinary claim), so what's the problem? I wasn't trying to "have it both ways", and the fact that you've even gone on this tangent indicates that you didn't understand my argument. It's as if I said, "You can't have it both ways; either the sky is blue, or up is down." No sane person would dispute that the sky is blue, and no sane person would say that up is down, so what the hell are you talking about?

As for the claim that "all the evolution took place in Britain", that's patent nonsense. Languages are evolving constantly: American English has been evolving since the first English settlements, and British English has likewise been evolving since that time. They both diverged from 17th century British English, and they are both significantly *different* from 17th century British English.

<<Lazar - I also don't have the energy to reply to your post.>>

Good, we can cease arguing now. I've presented all the arguments that need to be presented, and I don't want to waste any more of my 10 post per diem allowance on you.

<<I know I'm right, you know you're right, so arguing is pointless. I'll hold m opinion, you can hold yours, even if they do differ.>>

Good luck, then. You can continue to fight the good fight for ignorance, incomprehensibility, absurdity and chauvinism.

Caspian is right. All romance languages are wrong and non-standard. The only correct standard is Latin. Ok, no one speaks Latin anymore, they all use non-standard languages like French or Spanish instead, but that doesn't make them correct! They are all ignorant, except the Pope... although on second thought the Pope has a German accent, and so that makes him ignorant too for not being able to follow the standard pronunciation.

All English varieties are wrong, RP included. The only standard English is Old English, which was invented in the Middle Ages. So, all modern English speakers are wrong and ignorant, except the Queen of England, who still talks Old English because she was born soon after the Middle Ages... although on second thought the Queen uses modern words like "television", which is very modern slang that only appeared in the last century, so that makes her ignorant too for not being able to avoid slang.

We are all wrong! But that's not too bad. Some people have bigger problems: they are also born with the incorrect color of skin! Some even worship the incorrect god... Others, like the administrators of Antimoon, are very ignorant too because they chose the incorrect font for this forum: Tom, don't you know that sans-serif fonts are non-standard? The Queen uses Times New Roman.

<< Good luck, then. You can continue to fight the good fight for ignorance, incomprehensibility, absurdity and chauvinism. >>

I'm not going to rise to it. You want the last word, obviously. These debates certainly can get quite heated. I know better than to retaliate, however the Irish blood in me also demands the last word, so I had to write this paragraph.

Johnny, I like the first sentence of your post! And I agree about the Queen lol

You do all know that Caspian is only 15 years old right? Some authority! I wonder how much he gets beaten up at middle school for his idiosyncratic pronunciation of 'w'.

Yeshua:
1. Where on Earth did you get that from? Of course I'm not 15!
2. There's no such thing as middle school where I live.
3. I've never been beaten up.
4. That's not how I pronounce 'wh'. It's how RP speakers pronounce it.

Caspian, I think you're mistaken. Every single British pronouncing dictionary that I've ever seen - whether from Oxford or Cambridge or anyone else - shows the "wh" words using simple /w/ (in contrast with American dictionaries, which often do show a distinct /W/ phoneme - and it's rare even here); and John Wells has written that /W/ is basically extinct in England except for Northumbria.

For example, in this video of Queen Elizabeth from 1957 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFKYnEGfC6E ), listen to how she says "which" around 1:45, and how she says "what" around 1:55, and (most clearly) how she says "why" around 3:35: even as the archetypal exemplar of RP 50 years ago, she's using simple /w/. I've never seen anything to show that /W/-retention is any more common in RP than other archaic, moribund features such as the lot-cloth split.

>>General American and Received Pronunciation are two dialectal standards of the same language. This fact is so obvious, self-evident and universally acknowledged that no sensible or informed person would dispute it. Different languages, in general, lack mutual comprehensibility; the differences between GA and RP are so slight that they pale in comparison to other instances of dialectal diversity in the world.<<

The point that many people miss in this is that General American and Received Pronunciation are *far* closer than many pairs of dialects within both North American English and English English, respectively. With this taken into account, GA and RP actually seem extremely close to each other, all things considered.

I'm from Seattle and when I was in school I was taught that hotel begins with a hard H and historic may begin with either a soft or hard H. The soft H is still pronounced but it is close to "istoric" and the correct article for a soft H is an. Since I learned to say historic with a soft H it would sound wrong if I said a historic. I write the way I speak. You say potato and I say potato. ;)

Wow, I haven't been on here in awhile! I do not remember who wrote that I have too much time on my hands, but I would suggest you scroll down the three pages and see how many times Lazar has posted. I would have to say he/she is the one with too much time on his/her hands!