Which is easier american english or british english?
languages
I would dispute what Brennus says. He gives as a handful of examples (including "Chiang Kai-shek" ... puzzling). I could think of a few counter examples. Here's one: "chips" verses "French fries" (or wasn't that "Freedom fries"?), another "toilet" verses "washroom" ... I could go on. On the pronunciation front, American English is usually rhotic whereas British English ... well let's just say English English is generally non-rhotic. Adopting a rhotic accent can be difficult for some learners but not for others. In the end it all depends. Going back to pronunciation, a rhotic accent would be more difficult for a Japanese ESL student to adopt: they have trouble distinguishing /r/ and /l/, trouble with consonant clusters and trouble with consonants (except /n/) at the end of a syllable.
<<Which is easier american english or british english?>>
That's highly subjective and depends on your background. It is not something which can be universally declared but as Jim said is something that may be relevant only to individuals or certain groups of individuals.
<<Colonial varieties of any language are usually simpler than the form spoken in the mother country.>>
What is "simpler?" That is an incredibly vague term and while it may apply to certain aspects of a language (say, morphology) it is ludicrous to claim that all the features of a variety of a language are "simpler" than another.
Please inform yourself of things which you speak of.
<<This also goes for Canadian French vs Parisian French and Mexican, Caribbean and South American Spanish vs. Castilian Spanish. >>
No, it doesn't.
<<I would dispute what Brennus says. He gives as a handful of examples (including "Chiang Kai-shek" ... puzzling). I could think of a few counter examples. Here's one: "chips" verses "French fries" (or wasn't that "Freedom fries"?), another "toilet" verses "washroom" ... I could go on. On the pronunciation front, American English is usually rhotic whereas British English ... well let's just say English English is generally non-rhotic. Adopting a rhotic accent can be difficult for some learners but not for others. In the end it all depends. Going back to pronunciation, a rhotic accent would be more difficult for a Japanese ESL student to adopt: they have trouble distinguishing /r/ and /l/, trouble with consonant clusters and trouble with consonants (except /n/) at the end of a syllable.>>
Exactly. A voice of reason.
That's highly subjective and depends on your background. It is not something which can be universally declared but as Jim said is something that may be relevant only to individuals or certain groups of individuals.
<<Colonial varieties of any language are usually simpler than the form spoken in the mother country.>>
What is "simpler?" That is an incredibly vague term and while it may apply to certain aspects of a language (say, morphology) it is ludicrous to claim that all the features of a variety of a language are "simpler" than another.
Please inform yourself of things which you speak of.
<<This also goes for Canadian French vs Parisian French and Mexican, Caribbean and South American Spanish vs. Castilian Spanish. >>
No, it doesn't.
<<I would dispute what Brennus says. He gives as a handful of examples (including "Chiang Kai-shek" ... puzzling). I could think of a few counter examples. Here's one: "chips" verses "French fries" (or wasn't that "Freedom fries"?), another "toilet" verses "washroom" ... I could go on. On the pronunciation front, American English is usually rhotic whereas British English ... well let's just say English English is generally non-rhotic. Adopting a rhotic accent can be difficult for some learners but not for others. In the end it all depends. Going back to pronunciation, a rhotic accent would be more difficult for a Japanese ESL student to adopt: they have trouble distinguishing /r/ and /l/, trouble with consonant clusters and trouble with consonants (except /n/) at the end of a syllable.>>
Exactly. A voice of reason.
And, actually, a bit more about the colonial thing. It is generally theorized and accepted by many historical linguists that the further away a language is from its point of origin, the more conservative features it may display. This doesn't mean that it hasn't changed or fossilized (it has--all languages do change and always are), but linguists do use this concept to help pinpoint where a language was originally spoken based on evidence from different dialects.
At least in the case of English, if any generalization can be made about "simplicity" it might be argued that several aspects of English which are conservative cross-dialectally are actually more complex than simple. This topic was discussed pretty thoroughly on a linguistics board here (scroll down to user Zompist's first post on the page). Brennus (or anyone else who's curious), you might wish to learn some more about this interesting topic:
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?t=1533&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
At least in the case of English, if any generalization can be made about "simplicity" it might be argued that several aspects of English which are conservative cross-dialectally are actually more complex than simple. This topic was discussed pretty thoroughly on a linguistics board here (scroll down to user Zompist's first post on the page). Brennus (or anyone else who's curious), you might wish to learn some more about this interesting topic:
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?t=1533&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
>>I would dispute what Brennus says. He gives as a handful of examples (including "Chiang Kai-shek" ... puzzling<<
I can top that! My dialect is easier because I say "feng shwi" for Feng Shui, whereas in other dialects it's pronounced "feng shway" making it longer and harder.
I can top that! My dialect is easier because I say "feng shwi" for Feng Shui, whereas in other dialects it's pronounced "feng shway" making it longer and harder.
When it comes to language, the whole "mother country-colonial" aspect is entirely specious anyway.
The supposition that the "mother country" somehow retains the authoritative, "superior" version of the language is just complete tosh and based purely on subjective bias.
The Spanish of Spain is not the "master" version of Spanish any more than Peruvians speak a "lesser" version.
The same is true of English: in very simplistic terms, American English is not the "child" of British English. They're both siblings of the same parent.
The supposition that the "mother country" somehow retains the authoritative, "superior" version of the language is just complete tosh and based purely on subjective bias.
The Spanish of Spain is not the "master" version of Spanish any more than Peruvians speak a "lesser" version.
The same is true of English: in very simplistic terms, American English is not the "child" of British English. They're both siblings of the same parent.
I've never heard anyone say 'car registration plate' anyway. It's 'number plate'. And what an odd example - how many people are ever going to talk about Chiang Kai-shek??
<<And what an odd example - how many people are ever going to talk about Chiang Kai-shek??>>
Indeed :D
Indeed :D
One dialect is not going to be any "easier" than another, in any language.
<<One dialect is not going to be any "easier" than another, in any language.>>
Exactly
Exactly
<<I can top that! My dialect is easier because I say "feng shwi" for Feng Shui, whereas in other dialects it's pronounced "feng shway" making it longer and harder.>>
Mr. Fu: What dialect would that be? My feng shui specialist pronounces it "fung shway", which is how every book I've read says it's pronounced.
Mr. Fu: What dialect would that be? My feng shui specialist pronounces it "fung shway", which is how every book I've read says it's pronounced.
I would have thought that grammatically speaking AE is more complicated. I say this because of the greater usage of the subjunctive, which certainly complicates things, and because I would have thought there were more irregular verbs in the past tense like 'gotten, fit, dove' etc. I realise none of these usages is completely exclusive to either Briatin or America though.
I mean, which is more complicated for a learner of English?
'I suggested that he not tell them that, I suggest he tell them that' (more common in America) or
'I suggested that he didn't tell them that, I suggest he doesn't tell them that' (more common in Britain).
Unless I am wrong about this, please correct me if so.
'I suggested that he not tell them that, I suggest he tell them that' (more common in America) or
'I suggested that he didn't tell them that, I suggest he doesn't tell them that' (more common in Britain).
Unless I am wrong about this, please correct me if so.