American English a Creole language?

Kirk   Wed Jul 13, 2005 9:56 am GMT
<<Kirk, well, Enzo, from the posts by him which I've seen in the past, is an idiot who seems to view Received Pronunciation as "standard" for all of English, and North American English as simply a set of "nonstandard variants" which are "incorrect" (as to him only Received Pronunciation is "correct"). Hence, I really wouldn't take him seriously on this given subject whatsoever.>>

Well, whether or not that's true specifically about him, I think that people who believe a version of a language which barely 3% of the UK speaks is the unquestionable standard from which all other (native!) varieties decadently diverge have greater issues to deal with. We'll see what his response is--if it's unreasonable tosh I'll take your advice and ignore any future comments on the issue. Hopefully he can prove himself to be a more reasonable poster--Enzo, your thoughts?
Enzo   Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:15 pm GMT
You can say whatever you want about the American English but the European Colonial History clearly shows what language you speak:


New World languages are just an archaic group of European (Colonial languages), informal with simplified grammar and spelling, geographically isolated from Europe and influenced by other cultures.


American English is informal and very casual even in academic environments, keen to take influences and was shaped by millions of non native English speaking immigrants. American English is like any other new world languages, Ebonics, Creole, Hispano-Spanish or Brazilian Portuguese etc.


Hispano-Spanish sounds very informal and grammatically incorrect to any Castilian speakers. Brazilian Portuguese with a chaotic “grammar”, even more in contrast with the Continental Portuguese.

American English is not an exception either. Just ask yourself why the Americans are charmed by the British accent and why the Brits dislike the American English?

You may find the answer!
Travis   Wed Jul 13, 2005 6:40 pm GMT
By the way, Enzo, North American English is no further from 17th century English (the point where NAE and English English started diverging) than English English is, and likewise, NAE is not an offshoot of the *current* English English at all. When you say "simplified grammar", I see no real evidence of such, considering that NAE is not a creole, creoles and pidgins being the only sorts of human languages which one can actually call grammatically "simple", and as much as you may point to instances like the practical loss of "whom" (which is likely not limited to NAE), I may point to things like the acquiring of perfect inflections by a number of different modal verbs.

As for spelling, that is completely irrelevant here, and only betrays your fundamental ignorance with respect to this given subject. As for formality, there's no indication that NAE does not have a full range of formality within it, at least considering that I often use very formal speech for effect or emphasis. It is just that within at least American culture today one generally is less rather than more formal overall, which is purely a cultural matter, and has nothing to do with NAE itself.

And anyways, as much as NAE may not "sound right" to many living in the UK today, does that mean anything here? They do not "own" English, and there is nothing that fundamentally makes their English somehow "correct", and dialects outside of England "incorrect". Also, when you say "the British accent" here, you probably aren't *actually* referring to all English English dialects in general, but rather to specifically Received Pronunciation, which also, for the record, is perceived by many Brits today as very conservative, formal, and class-marked, enough so that many RP speakers seem to be switching towards more Estuary English-like forms at the present.
Kirk   Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:16 pm GMT
Travis is completely right. Enzo, your nonsense about "New World" languages is laughable.
Enzo   Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:36 am GMT
Well, then you should spend some time in Europe -UK, Spain or Portugal, Accommodate with either Continental language/grammar and you’ll notice that any New World language is laughable...

Beginning with Castilian vs Hispano-Spanish, Portuguese vs “Brasileiro” French vs “Quebecoise” and finally British English vs NAE…

“Hispanico”, “Brasileiro”, “Quebecoise” and US English are just a group of Colonial born languages and separately evolving in the New World. No offence, but none of those languages, spelling or grammar are accepted in Europe or considered prestigious. Obviously you don’t give a flying F@ck ! Neither the Creole nor the Ebonics speakers. But linguistically, culturally and socially the "Colonial" languages are just simply colonial...
Someone   Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:58 am GMT
"Enzo" is nothing more than a troll trying to stir up trouble. I would suggest ignoring his posts. His repetitious arguments and utter lack of logic and evidence clearly show this.
Kirk   Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:26 am GMT
<<"Enzo" is nothing more than a troll trying to stir up trouble. I would suggest ignoring his posts. His repetitious arguments and utter lack of logic and evidence clearly show this.>>

Quite clearly. Oh, hey, by the way, Someone, have you ever checked out our forum lingcafe at:

http://14.freebb.com/index.php?freebb=antimoonbis

? It was the temporary antimoon forum but we decided to keep it and have recently named it. We'd love to see you or any other reasonable people interested in languages there :) If you've already checked it out or already post there under another name just ignore this message.
Someone   Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:33 am GMT
Thanks, but I already have an account there (of a different name). By the way, I'm frequently impersonated here, so watch out for strange posts under this name...
Kirk   Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:52 am GMT
<<Thanks, but I already have an account there (of a different name). By the way, I'm frequently impersonated here, so watch out for strange posts under this name...>>

Yeah impersonation can be a problem here. However, usually the posts are so ridiculous that I can tell right away it's not the "real" person.
Trawick   Fri Jul 15, 2005 3:37 pm GMT
"“Hispanico”, “Brasileiro”, “Quebecoise” and US English are just a group of Colonial born languages and separately evolving in the New World. No offence, but none of those languages, spelling or grammar are accepted in Europe or considered prestigious. Obviously you don’t give a flying F@ck ! Neither the Creole nor the Ebonics speakers. But linguistically, culturally and socially the "Colonial" languages are just simply colonial... "

First of all, Enzo, there is no unified dialect of Spanish that exists in the Americas. Some accents (like Argentinian) sound more Castilian, others (Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Dominican) have bits of French, African and English influence. I've certainly never heard of "hispanico."

I'm not exactly sure what point you're making here, Enzo. Um, yes, the languages of the Americas could indeed be referred to as "colonial." I'm not exactly sure how that bears a negative connotation, unless you're living in 1887.
Brennus   Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:36 am GMT
I agree with much of what Enzo said. Americans are indeed charmed by British accents and studies have shown that products sell better in America when advertisers speak with British accents. One study which was done by a team of psychologists showed that American police officers went easier on traffic violators who talked with British accents and were more likely to let them off with a warning rather than give them a ticket.

Rather than say that the European languages of the America's are archaic it would be more accurate to just say that they have some archaicisms in them. Overall, they are still the same languages of the mother countries. Ladino (or Judaeo-Spanish) would be an example of a form of Spanish which is definitely "archaic." It separated from Castillian Spanish shortly after 1492 and is still basically 15th century Spanish intact with occasional Hebrew, Greek, Turkish and Balkan influences mixed in.
Damian in Edinburgh   Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:16 am GMT
<<American police officers went easier on traffic violators who talked with British accents and were more likely to let them off with a warning rather than give them a ticket>>

That's worth remembering if ever I find myself over there and commit a slight offence driving my car...like forgetting to drive on the "wrong" side of the road.

I still can't get my head round the alleged susceptibility of Americans to British accents...weird really, as I'm sorry to say it doesn't work the other way round....sorry but it's true! I can't ever imagine any British traffic officer being so lenient towards a traffic transgressor with an American accent. He would treat him/her just the same as anybody else in the fair and equitable way our police carry out justice. LOL

I'm not sure I would like to be treated differently just because of the way I spoke. Cool...but hardly fair on the next miscreant who has a local American accent....he'd be most unlikely to have a pint with me that's for sure.
Mxsmanic   Sun Jul 17, 2005 7:33 am GMT
The differences between American and British English are very small. Why do people insist on exaggerating them? The pronunciation differences are no greater than those found within the UK itself (in fact, they are smaller), and the vocabulary differences affect only a very tiny percentage of the lexicon.

Given how poorly most non-native speakers of English read and write the language, it seems odd that they should worry about the tiny distinctions between American and British English. They need to figure out the difference between the past simple and the present perfect first, and they need to master the difference between pin and pan … only then can they start to worry about trivial details like American/British distinctions.
Fredrik from Norway   Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:21 pm GMT
Mxsmanic:
I don´t go around worrying about these matters. I just think it´s fantastic that NAE ended up so intact as it is, when you think of the enormous amount of non-native speakers who settled in the US. Remember, German is the most common ancestry among today´s Americans!
Sander   Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:36 pm GMT
=>German is the most common ancestry among today´s Americans! <=

Really?! :) In that case what happened to all the German last names?Where they 'anglefied?'