Do the Americans speak English better than the British?

<<You didn't answer my question about 'ain't'. If it's historically the contraction of 'am' and 'not', was it also used as the contraction for 'is' and 'not' and 'are' and 'not'? Or is that a more recent thing?>>

Oh, sorry, I meant to get to that. Yes, historically "ain't" was the contraction of "am" + "not" (even back to the Old English period) and then experienced semantic widening (centuries ago) to also include negation of other forms (for some speakers). There's nothing too odd about this--this kind of language change happens all the time. For instance, in English "you" used to refer to just the second-person plural but it later experienced a semantic change allowing it to also cover the second-person singular despite its historical origins. Of course now it can cover both.

Are you referring to when 'thou' and 'thee' were replaced by using just you?

You obviously seem to have studied the history of the English language in some depth. I haven't myself, so I can't claim to be any kind of authority on the matter. I have to say I have been quite surprised to find that some things that we are led to believe are 'bad English' actually have a legitimate historical basis, especially something like 'ain't'. Maybe I'll start using it on a regular basis and shoot down anyone who dares to correct me ;). Seriously though, it's all quite enlightening!

Would you say though, that if something is considered poor English by the majority in this day and age, even though historically it was correct, that it is so to speak, 'wrong', as it is no longer widely accepted as the right way to speak? I mean if I went to a job interview and used 'ain't' throughout it, I don't imagine I would be judged too favourably. The same goes for if I used the double negative.

<<Would you say though, that if something is considered poor English by the majority in this day and age, even though historically it was correct, that it is so to speak, 'wrong', as it is no longer widely accepted as the right way to speak? I mean if I went to a job interview and used 'ain't' throughout it, I don't imagine I would be judged too favourably. The same goes for if I used the double negative.>>

Sure, those are sociolinguistic considerations. And by this point many (me included) don't even have double negatives or "ain't" natively in their speech but my point was just that there is nothing inherently linguistically wrong (or "illogical") with forms which have rather arbitrarily deemed "nonstandard" despite their social stigma.

<<Are you referring to when 'thou' and 'thee' were replaced by using just you?>>

Yeah, that's it exactly. As "you" spread to include the second person singular as well as the plural "thou" was pushed out (except for in a few regional existing dialects).

<<You obviously seem to have studied the history of the English language in some depth. I haven't myself, so I can't claim to be any kind of authority on the matter. I have to say I have been quite surprised to find that some things that we are led to believe are 'bad English' actually have a legitimate historical basis, especially something like 'ain't'. Maybe I'll start using it on a regular basis and shoot down anyone who dares to correct me ;). Seriously though, it's all quite enlightening!>>

Glad you've enjoyed it--yeah, I think it's really interesting stuff, too. I love historical linguistics.

Brennus : « Generally speaking, looking at the big picture - the macro-picture, the British have a better command of the English language than Americans do. »

Tu vas te faire massacrer !

:)

Obviously Brennus speaks Estuary... ya know, 'coz he speaks propa 'n' tha', innit?

The trolls plus the rest of the board. Everyone's used to Brennus' stupidity anyway.

Come off it Brennus. Don't swindle yourself so easily.

I mean, look at what you wrote: "In fact, one of my friends, a linguist of sorts, once cynically remarked that English is a difficult language which hasn't transplanted well in countries outside England beginning as far back as the Middle Ages with Scotland and Ireland.". Gullibly, you treat your friend's word as the gospel?

<<Generally speaking, looking at the big picture - the macro-picture, the British have a better command of the English language than Americans do. In fact, one of my friends, a linguist of sorts, once cynically remarked that English is a difficult language which hasn't transplanted well in countries outside England beginning as far back as the Middle Ages with Scotland and Ireland.

On the other hand, the United States has had a better public school system than England and this might explain why the poorest people in America tend to speak English a little better than than the poorest people in England.>>

<<I remember reading an article in 1968 which said that despite all of the complaining by Black Americans about second class citizenship status...>>

Yes, "all of the complaining" indeed. I can't possibly imagine why they might've had reason to complain.

<<Generally speaking, looking at the big picture - the macro-picture, the British have a better command of the English language than Americans do...the poorest people in America tend to speak English a little better than than the poorest people in England.>>

Your case isn't getting any stronger.

<<Come off it Brennus. Don't swindle yourself so easily.

I mean, look at what you wrote: "In fact, one of my friends, a linguist of sorts, once cynically remarked that English is a difficult language which hasn't transplanted well in countries outside England beginning as far back as the Middle Ages with Scotland and Ireland.". Gullibly, you treat your friend's word as the gospel?>>

Unfortunately it's a theme in the caliber of his posts which is a shame since Brennus is obviously naturally inquisitive and would appear to want to find out more about language and linguistics-related topics yet something has gone horribly wrong. Brennus knows I wish no personal malice (as I've said before I'm sure he's someone I wouldn't mind running into and saying 'hi' to at the grocery store or something) but I cannot deny something is, sadly, all too often amiss with his posts.

But, are you really surprised by what he said? I guess I'm not--many of us have more or less just gotten to the point where we ignore the recurring nonsense by now (and not just the nonsense from aforementioned poster). I think I personally got to the "generally ignore" point when he once randomly attacked another poster as "not being well-read" for not agreeing with his own completely unsubstantiated claims. Or when he elegantly suggested (and I directly quote) "Folks, don't be stupid about it" when others dared challenge another questionable claim. This is unacceptable forum behavior (especially for a moderator) but for better or worse we're just used to it by now.

Anyway, apparently he can't be changed so let's move on and get back to the topic...

Well, I have to say that i'm always thought of "whom" as more of a British usage than an American one -- i usually avoid it as much as possible, myself.

As far as quality of education goes, I can't compare the education systems of the UK vs the US, as I've only experienced the latter. But I remember reading a subtle comment on American education in the historical fiction novel Redcoat (set in 1775 or so), wherein the prontagonist, a British soldier, attempts and fails to read a cross-stitched sampler framed on the wall in a local whorehouse. The madam casually mentions that she had made it at the age of seven. The subtext there was that here was a grown man from the mother country who was completely illiterate, while a colonial prostitute had been reading and writing since childhood. Given that the author of the book is himself English, I suppose that while fictional (and far removed from the present), that anecdote gives some credence to Aquatar's view. While the overall quality of American education is often ridiculed abroad and at home, it is worth noting that it tends to be very egalitarian -- it's offered to everyone.

Uriel:

I wouldn't make to much of this. The level of literacy in the English language - whether in Britain or the colonies - was not very high in the 18th Century.

I'd argue too that education in the UK is no less egalitarian than the US.

"Well, I have to say that i'm always thought of "whom" as more of a British usage than an American one -- i usually avoid it as much as possible, myself. "

The words "I" and "I'm" should ALWAYS be capitalised (see other thread on this topic).

This shows that the British DO have a better grasp of English than the Americans.

"A brawny Italian-American defendant from New Jersey who tells the court "I ain't sayin' nothin'" isn't cleverly telling us "I'm going to say something." "

He certainly is.

"I ain't saying nothing" means that he is going to say something.

Study "I ain't saying nothing" very very carefully and you'll agree.

He ISN'T going to say nothing, so obviously he's going to say something.