I was talking to a friend of mine, a foreigner, who made a comment about how she hates English. I asked her why she hated it and she commenced to inform me that "everybody" (this being the non-Anglo world) thinks that "English is a bullshhh language put together by idiots." She told me I should just get used to it. Well, I was extremely offended that she felt it was Ok to insult my language right in front of me... but what was most curious of all to me was  her later referral to English as "our language." "But, that's our language" she said.

    Needless to say, this sort of puzzled me... How could a non-Anglo first insult the language to know end and proclaim her hate for it, and then call it her own? I tried to explain that, in English, when you say a language is "yours" you are saying to everyone that it is your native language... She didn't get this, but that's not the point. The point is, now that English is quickly becoming the lingua franca for the entire world, are non-Anglos reacting to it with a bitterness? Do they see it as linguistic imperialism? And most of all, what do we, the native speakers of this language think of our tongue's new position?

  Personally I think that it is a bad thing for the language itself. The English language is quickly losing its connection to Anglo culture, and it's almost like our language is being taken away from us and the responsibility of its evolution has been taken out of our hands and is being taken over by non-natives. I know it isn't necessarily correct to say that a language "belongs" to any particular group, for every language is able to be learnt by whomever has the resources and the will... but there is a connection between a natural language and its native speakers which is more substantial than that of a non-native speaker, and hence, it does belong to them more. It's the same way that my mother does not actually belong to me, but she belongs more to me more than to some dude from Timbuktu....

Hmm, there are advantages and disadvantages.. for instance you Yanks have bastardised the language somewhat  ;) however you have also added words that we get wrong.. Aluminum for one.

Having english as the worlds language is beneficial for us... all big businesses do business in english, almost all the stuff on the net is in english. etc etc.

It wont hurt anything having people speak english as second language.. everybody and seriously i mean everybody in europe speaks english. A lot people in Mexico speak english.. spanish speaking south american (i.e most of south america) will have some basic english.

In many parts of Africa english is taught and in places like China, Japan, India & Pakistan English is very wideley (typo?) used and and understood.

As your standard monolingual American, it's convenient for me.  Is it a "good" thing?  Not sure.

I'm not sure if it is a good thing or not. Like Max said, it is convenient of me. Part of me feels it is very arrogrant to want the world to speak "our" language. Yes, it does help with business dealings, diplomacy (I could have a few comments to make here but I will keep to the topic  ;)), etc. I do believe that the most spoken "native" language is Spanish-that is more countries-as oppose to more of the population. Population goes-it may be Chinese. I have no stats on this so it is only my guess. But, I have heard somewhere that Spanish may be creeping up on English as the "international" language. (About a 100-200 years, it was French.)

English is a mish-mash of other languages-German, Latin, etc. There really isn't a "pure" language on this Earth today. I have heard that English is the hardest language to learn as a second language. Of course, I wouldn't know this because it is my first language. Who knows, maybe with the world getting smaller, a few 100 years from now there may only be one language in the world which will be a mish-mash of ALL languages and have regional dialects.



Cat

Are you referring to American English (which is not true English at all, quite frankly, but a lesser version than true English). Do I think English should be the world's language? No, it would certainly be linguistic imperialism just as many Christian fundamentalists tried to make Christianity the world's religion.

Having said that it should be acquired as a second language just as Americans should acquired another language besides English.

Tanya

Are you referring to American English (which is not true English at all, quite frankly, but a lesser version than true English). Do I think English should be the world's language? No, it would certainly be linguistic imperialism just as many Christian fundamentalists tried to make Christianity the world's religion.

Having said that it should be acquired as a second language just as Americans should acquired another language besides English.

Tanya


To tell all British people *who take this particular attitude* the truth, quite frankly, I resent your elitist views on the language. American English is not a bastardisation of the English language anymore than is Cockney or Aussie English. There are three major English dialects; British, American, and Commonwealth. None of them is better or more pure than the other. What is the difference between American and British, really? I understand everything you say and vice versa. We have different accents (between which most foreigners can't even distinguish), we call a few things by different names, and we spell a few things differently. The idea that the English nation, let alone the UK, is united under a single, pure English language is absurd anyway. Stand at any point in England and listen to people speak, move five miles in any direction and you're hearing a totally different accent and dialect. You think that the voiceless "R" is so pure, but did you know that this evolution in British speech is relatively new, and that the reason we Americans/Canadians pronounce  our "R"s always is that we did not take part in the change (because we had a little something called the Atlantic ocean sitting between us). The "received pronunciation" of today did not exist two centuries ago except in a small portion of London whose dialect gained favour in the royal court, and thus, the whole country. There are still inward regions of England where the local dialect dictates the full pronunciations of "R"s. The participle "gotten" I maintain is purer than the "got" the British use today, for it (once again) used to be the standard all over the Anglo world, until popular British speech moved toward "got." The purity of the English language no longer shifts according to England's linguistic fancy. English people at one point were moving all over the globe and bringing the English language of their day with them, we Americans and Commonwealth citizens inherited their respective dialects the same way you inherited the popular speech of your fathers' day. All our respective countries used to be part of England, and just because our political definitions have changed, doesn't mean that the linguistic legitimacy of our dialects have become "lesser." No no, they are equally pure. Just because you happened to be born in the geographic region where the language began doesn't give you some preternatural dominion over our language. American English (at least when spoken correctly) is not lesser than any other dialect. That comment was particularly disappointing for me to hear out of you, Tanya.

Our dialect is not a bastardised version of British, it is one which has separately evolved from an earlier English... the same earlier English from which yours has separately evolved. I will say again that your dialect's geographic significance gives it no dominion as the right and true English.




NOTE: I have removed and amended portions of this post in an attempt to make clearer my position, and to ensure minimum offence is taken to any part of this text. Reasons for this are dealt with in later posts (around page 3).

Didn't we try this "world language" bit, already, with Esperanto? 

Since language carries culture, I don't think its a good idea.  The result is to dilute other cultures.  I see this every time I go to Puerto Rico, where, more and more, people speak "spanglish".  Obviously languages evolve, and there is no pure language, as someone pointed out, but I don't think one language should dominate the world any more than one country should.

McDonald, your last post was very impressive. I agree with and applaud everything you say. And honestly, from hearing British people speak and observing various writings on the internet, I think that American dialect is much closer to the "Queen's English" than the modern British dialect.

Secondly, I observed an off-base comment that English is simply a polygot language(mixture of several languages). This is infact not true. English is a West Germanic language, part of the "Island" offshoot along with Frisian(a Dutch language, its very neat to listen to I heard it on a video in English class, I could understand much of what the man was saying). Now, of course it does have outside contributions. Most notably from French during the time of the Normans, however most of the important "sentence-building" words we use in everyday English have their roots in Old English. I have studied some German, and I was suprised at some of the remarkable similarities.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I could not stand to see English called a polygot language. ;)

Are you referring to American English (which is not true English at all, quite frankly, but a lesser version than true English). Do I think English should be the world's language? No, it would certainly be linguistic imperialism just as many Christian fundamentalists tried to make Christianity the world's religion.

Having said that it should be acquired as a second language just as Americans should acquired another language besides English.

Tanya

Cor blimey!  Wot's that you say, luv?

McDonald, your last post was very impressive. I agree with and applaud everything you say. And honestly, from hearing British people speak and observing various writings on the internet, I think that American dialect is much closer to the "Queen's English" than the modern British dialect.

Secondly, I observed an off-base comment that English is simply a polygot language(mixture of several languages). This is infact not true. English is a West Germanic language, part of the "Island" offshoot along with Frisian(a Dutch language, its very neat to listen to I heard it on a video in English class, I could understand much of what the man was saying). Now, of course it does have outside contributions. Most notably from French during the time of the Normans, however most of the important "sentence-building" words we use in everyday English have their roots in Old English. I have studied some German, and I was suprised at some of the remarkable similarities.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I could not stand to see English called a polygot language. ;)


You're absolutely correct. Granted, English has no qualms about absorbing words from other languages, but the plain truth is that English is mainly a mixture of Anglo-Saxon (Old English) and Norman French, with most of our important words coming directly from Anglo-Saxon. We are not a Cuisinart. I make a common practise of taking any given sentence I speak, and analysing it to see how many words were Germanic, how many Latinate (French, usually) and how many other. Most of the words we use in relaxed speech are Germanic... it is usually when we mean to sound more intelligent that we start using Latinates.

You're absolutely correct. Granted, English has no qualms about absorbing words from other languages, but the plain truth is that English is mainly a mixture of Anglo-Saxon (Old English) and Norman French, with most of our important words coming directly from Anglo-Saxon. We are not a Cuisinart. I make a common practise of taking any given sentence I speak, and analysing it to see how many words were Germanic, how many Latinate (French, usually) and how many other. Most of the words we use in relaxed speech are Germanic... it is usually when we mean to sound more intelligent that we start using Latinates.


Yes I have also observed the tendency to use Latinates when we want to sound intelligent. But, remember, the French do not have a word for entrepreneur.  ;)

The reason behind many French words in our vocabulary refering to more "refined" or intelligent things is simple: During the time of the Normans, French was the language of the ruling class. A perfect example of this is beef and cow. The English-speaking peasants who tended to them called them cow(it is from old English), but when the cow was brought to the table for the French-speakers to eat, it became beef(a word of French-origin).

Yes I have also observed the tendency to use Latinates when we want to sound intelligent. But, remember, the French do not have a word for entrepreneur.  ;)

The reason behind many French words in our vocabulary refering to more "refined" or intelligent things is simple: During the time of the Normans, French was the language of the ruling class. A perfect example of this is beef and cow. The English-speaking peasants who tended to them called them cow(it is from old English), but when the cow was brought to the table for the French-speakers to eat, it became beef(a word of French-origin).


My history professor brings this point up fequently. It is the same with "deer" and "venison", "calf" and "veal", "sheep" and "mutton", "pig" and "pork". It is also the reason that most of our legal jargon is so littered with Norman French, even today in the US.

Didn't we try this "world language" bit, already, with Esperanto?   


There's still about 50,000 Esperanto speakers world wide.  It was sort of a Bohemian chic in the 1920s.  Thank God it didn't catch on.  It's about as beautiful as Pig Latin!
:P

There's still about 50,000 Esperanto speakers world wide.  It was sort of a Bohemian chic in the 1920s.  Thank God it didn't catch on.  It's about as beautiful as Pig Latin!
:P


Um, whatever. Esperanto is a fully developed language and it is not ugly. It is well-structured, and actually doesn't sound too bad at all. Has an almost italian sound imo.

I put 'meh I like it' because it is my own language I suppose.

I think it is sad that people are arguing here about a 'true English language'. The English language is good in that it allows for all these different interpretations and expressions to become available. I am proud of the fact that I can bastardise my own language and am proud that we have all these different dialects in Britain (regardless of how ugly they may sound to some) because it adds character.

I see McDonald slagging off British literature but with no reason or need to do that. I see that a lot of it is crap (I can't be bothered with Bridget Jones or Nick Hornby either) but there are some good authors out there that haven't made it accross the pond.

Think before you post.

I put 'meh I like it' because it is my own language I suppose.

I think it is sad that people are arguing here about a 'true English language'. The English language is good in that it allows for all these different interpretations and expressions to become available. I am proud of the fact that I can bastardise my own language and am proud that we have all these different dialects in Britain (regardless of how ugly they may sound to some) because it adds character.

I see McDonald slagging off British literature but with no reason or need to do that. I see that a lot of it is crap (I can't be bothered with Bridget Jones or Nick Hornby either) but there are some good authors out there that haven't made it accross the pond.

Think before you post.


Bobby, with all due respect, I did think before I posted. My post was in direct reply to someone's very off-handed comments about American English being a sub-standard, bastardised dialect.

Are you referring to American English (which is not true English at all, quite frankly, but a lesser version than true English).

I naturally took great offence to this, and after refuting the original suggestion I thought it prudent to describe exactly what I thought about the British dialect which so many Britons consider to be so superior. If it were as "true" and superior as the person suggested, the quality of the literature would be a direct reflection, and the truth of the matter is that American literature in the past fifty years has far exceeded in significance than that of British Lit. That isn't to say that there aren't a number of quality novelists on your side of the Atlantic, of course there are, but that doesn't affect the validity of my observation. I didn't intend this to be a British v. North American argument, I just said something that needed to be said. I don't resent the presence of so many regional dialects either, I appreciate it in fact. But I do resent the popular British notion that American English is something unworthy of the title "English," and Bobby, she who wrote the comment in question is not the only one who thinks this, it is a great majority. The suggestion simply isn't true, and it's entirely subjective. Everything I wrote needed to be written. Any subjective opinions of mine which were included in my statement were clearly introduced as such, unlike the earlier statement to which mine was a reply, where the subjective opinion was presented as a self-evident truth.

I do not intend to argue over which is the "true English" because the answer is neither one, absolutely. English is English is English, the differences in accents and dialect are negligible.

Um, whatever. Esperanto is a fully developed language and it is not ugly. It is well-structured, and actually doesn't sound too bad at all. Has an almost italian sound imo.


I actually don't enjoy the Southern European languages such as Italian, Spanish, Catalan, and Portuguese. Which is one reason I don't like Esperanto, it seems to favour the Romance languages. I much prefer the Northern European languages like Swedish, German, English, Irish, Welsh, Finnish, and though French is so closely related to the languages whose sound I don't particularly enjoy, I like French for its sound is unique among the Romance languages.

I also like Japanese.

For conlangs, I think Folkspraak is pretty cool. It is meant to be an auxillary language for speakers of Germanic languages, and it is still in the works. Not quite as developed as Esperanto.

My main lingual interest is Spanish, but I have dabbled in French. I kinda prefer the Romance languages to Germanic.

I also like Arabic, which a lot of people find strange. However, the thing you must realize is that the various Arab dialects(Egyptian, Levantine, Pennisular etc.) are quite different from eachother, and yes some are pretty rough. But Fusha Arabic(Modern Standard), is truely a beautiful language. It is very very poetic. If you have ever heard the Qur'an recited you would know what I mean, very lyrical.

One Northern European language that I really really like and plan to learn more about in the future when I can is Welsh. I am of Welsh descent, so that adds to my interest as well. Plus two of my favorite actors are Welshman, Richard Burton and Christian Bale.  8)

the truth of the matter is that American literature in the past fifty years has far exceeded in significance than that of British Lit. That isn't to say that there aren't a number of quality novelists on your side of the Atlantic, of course there are, but that doesn't affect the validity of my observation.



This is of course your own opinion, it does come across, as does quite a bit of this whole posting as extremely arrogant.
English is the language spoken by so many as a second language because that it is the language of money.  French is considered the language used in diplomacy because of its nuances, absent in the English language. 

You can't have everything.  Americans want people to speak English when they travel abroad, ("the ugly American") but then some say they don't want English to lose it's Anglo connection and dislike so many "foreigners" speaking English in all those "foreign countries".  You can't have it both ways.  English is probably bound to be the planet's unofficial language.  French and Spanish are likely a very close second. 

Bobby, with all due respect, I did think before I posted. My post was in direct reply to someone's very off-handed comments about American English being a sub-standard, bastardised dialect.

Well, with all due respect, think a little harder. You replied to an off-handed comment using an off-handed comment. Your off-handed comment has offended me like the other person's comment has offended you.

I naturally took great offence to this, and after refuting the original suggestion I thought it prudent to describe exactly what I thought about the British dialect which so many Britons consider to be so superior.

Who do? I have barely seen a British person (besides Alcoholica which I guess is where this arrogant defence is coming from) tackle this thread. I didn't think he was correct that 'you yanks have bastardised the language' because we have been doing it for years. Anyway, people are naturally going to take pride in their own language, culture whatever because it is what they know.

If it were as "true" and superior as the person suggested, the quality of the literature would be a direct reflection, and the truth of the matter is that American literature in the past fifty years has far exceeded in significance than that of British Lit. That isn't to say that there aren't a number of quality novelists on your side of the Atlantic, of course there are, but that doesn't affect the validity of my observation.

You haven't validated anything with this paragraph or previous posts. What you have done is quoted from other people to support your own beliefs.

I didn't intend this to be a British v. North American argument, I just said something that needed to be said. I don't resent the presence of so many regional dialects either, I appreciate it in fact.

Good because there is no need for it.

But I do resent the popular British notion that American English is something unworthy of the title "English," and Bobby, she who wrote the comment in question is not the only one who thinks this, it is a great majority.

Who? I don't think this and many of our fellow 'out of America' people feel the same way. I love the Australian 'Strine' they use and the American's usage of certain words and terms. Sure we all have variations of saying stuff but that is merely all it is. I have said this since I started the boards and the message hasn't changed. We must make an attempt to embrace the differences everybody has. 

The suggestion simply isn't true, and it's entirely subjective. Everything I wrote needed to be written. Any subjective opinions of mine which were included in my statement were clearly introduced as such, unlike the earlier statement to which mine was a reply, where the subjective opinion was presented as a self-evident truth.

When you argue, you usually show evidence for arguments. O.k if the earlier statement was presented as self-evident truth then your earlier comment of saying 'American literature has exceeded in that of British literature' must also show evidence. The only evidence I see is that there are more people in America than in the UK therefore there ought to more better writers as a result. So did it really need to be written?

I do not intend to argue over which is the "true English" because the answer is neither one, absolutely. English is English is English, the differences in accents and dialect are negligible.

Good.

You can't have everything.  Americans want people to speak English when they travel abroad, ("the ugly American") but then some say they don't want English to lose it's Anglo connection and dislike so many "foreigners" speaking English in all those "foreign countries".  You can't have it both ways.  English is probably bound to be the planet's unofficial language.  French and Spanish are likely a very close second. 


Yeah, I guess that's why I'm working on my fourth language. ;)

Well, with all due respect, think a little harder. You replied to an off-handed comment using an off-handed comment. Your off-handed comment has offended me like the other person's comment has offended you.


You haven't validated anything with this paragraph or previous posts. What you have done is quoted from other people to support your own beliefs.

Who? I don't think this and many of our fellow 'out of America' people feel the same way. I love the Australian 'Strine' they use and the American's usage of certain words and terms. Sure we all have variations of saying stuff but that is merely all it is. I have said this since I started the boards and the message hasn't changed. We must make an attempt to embrace the differences everybody has. 

Good.





Bobby, I'm not saying that you aren't an exception. But I went to school with British kids, plenty of them, and I have frequently been informed that I don't speak English, I speak American. If I say that British Literature has become stagnate, I don't exactly see that as an off-handed comment. And as far as providing evidence that American is not bastardised English, If you'd like to glance at my original post on the matter, I am sure you'll find plenty of information which supports my statement. In my original post, the bit about British lit. being less significant today was introduced as my own opinion. It's also an opinion which your own statements suggest you agree with, if even just a little:
The only evidence I see is that there are more people in America than in the UK therefore there ought to more better writers as a result. So did it really need to be written?


I think it did need to be written, for it only helps to show the ridiculousness of the notion that British English is superior to American English which is what my original post was all about. I think you might be forgetting the fact that this was all in direct reply to someone else's post. I didn't come out of left field with a bunch of Anti-British sentiment, I love the British. It's pretty evident that you don't like what I have said, but you shake the moral finger at me while not even so much as glancing at those who provoked me in the first place. So is it the perceived arrogance in my posts, or is it merely that they were aimed at British English that disgusts you? Because I tell you verily that I am not the only one on this thread guilty of being a little arrogant. So before you make a moral crusade out of lambasting what I have said, why don't you follow through with everyone else? I don't disagree that we should embrace what makes us different, but don't expect me to embrace my dialect being called "lesser" or "bastardised." At least I hope that's not what you had in mind. And that goes to anyone who had a problem with my post. You all know me, and you should all know by now that I am not some kind of xenophobic nationalist. My emotional connection to this country really isn't that strong, for I have two countries of which I am a citizen. But I do have a great connection with my natural dialect and will not tolerate it being quoted as something substandard. Period. I've made my views known, and I think I have done a fairly good job of explaining and supporting MOST of it. If you have a problem with parts of my defence, get over it, nobody's perfect. That's really all I have to say about it.

I'd like to thank His Dudeness for not jumping on the "offended" bandwagon and actually making an attempt to get the point of my original post.

Bobby, I'm not saying that you aren't an exception. But I went to school with British kids, plenty of them, and I have frequently been informed that I don't speak English, I speak American. If I say that British Literature has become stagnate, I don't exactly see that as an off-handed comment. And as far as providing evidence that American is not bastardised English, If you'd like to glance at my original post on the matter, I am sure you'll find plenty of information which supports my statement. In my original post, the bit about British lit. being less significant today was introduced as my own opinion. It's also an opinion which your own statements suggest you agree with, if even just a little:

You went to school with British kids? Well o.k. British kids are like American kids. We are all ignorant at a certain age and will say things that aren't correct. I am not just annoyed at your comment about British literature (which I agreed that the two authors you mentioned weren't that great), it was the way you tried to use it as a way of justifying your argument for who has the better language - which is immature and didn't need to be written!

I think it did need to be written, for it only helps to show the ridiculousness of the notion that British English is superior to American English which is what my original post was all about. I think you might be forgetting the fact that this was all in direct reply to someone else's post.

I realise this post was in conjunction with another person's post. That post I didn't believe was correct either but maybe she could have changed her perspective with better words perhaps? Your post just seemed petty and arrogant - which was the main reason of my annoyance.

I didn't come out of left field with a bunch of Anti-British sentiment, I love the British. It's pretty evident that you don't like what I have said, but you shake the moral finger at me while not even so much as glancing at those who provoked me in the first place. So is it the perceived arrogance in my posts, or is it merely that they were aimed at British English that disgusts you? Because I tell you verily that I am not the only one on this thread guilty of being a little arrogant.

You are right that you are not the only thread conceived as arrogant and they are treated as such. Anyway, yes, another reason is that your comments seemed to insinuate a contempt for Britain not British English. A bit of social sensitivity doesn't go amiss. If people outside of America talks wrongly about your country, you would be annoyed, right?

So before you make a moral crusade out of lambasting what I have said, why don't you follow through with everyone else? I don't disagree that we should embrace what makes us different, but don't expect me to embrace my dialect being called "lesser" or "bastardised."

Don't patronise me. A lot of people make general comments and they think they are right as well but they don't seem to show the same arrogance as you have portrayed. Your dialect is not 'lesser' or 'bastardised'.

At least I hope that's not what you had in mind. And that goes to anyone who had a problem with my post. You all know me, and you should all know by now that I am not some kind of xenophobic nationalist. My emotional connection to this country really isn't that strong, for I have two countries of which I am a citizen.

I don't really know you that well, McDonald. I know you enough to know that you usually write well thought out posts. I don't believe you are xenophobic.

I'd like to thank His Dudeness for not jumping on the "offended" bandwagon and actually making an attempt to get the point of my original post.

Don't belittle my reaction to your post. A lot of people on the boards have been outraged by lesser things. I am an easy-going person who tries to avoid confrontation usually but I take annoyance to people who make unneccessary comments about my country like people may slight your dialect.

So I would ask you to get over it as well.  :)

Modified to add: I had a look over the thread again and I also checked Andy's post (Alchoholica) and said that he was incorrect in what he said. He had a wink smiley next to the comment insinuating he was being tongue in cheek! The only person you seem to be defending yourself against (before I got involved) was Tanya - who isn't even British!

I think it's likely a form of English will become the 'international language' very soon. I think the world is more likely to follow the US versions of spellings & pronunciation than the UK's, mainly because US media (and Microsoft products!) are more frequently broadcast/ used. This is an inevitable part of the globalisation of US culture.
As an Englishman, there are plenty of aspects of this thread that rile me. I'd agree that none of the dialects of English is any better than any other, each to their own. I'm not quite sure where the argument about literature comes in, surely that has nothing to do with the quality of language...it's also quite a giggle to see Americans defending a language that originated elsewhere against 'foreigners'  ;D  As for El Duderino and his "American dialect is much closer to the "Queen's English" than the modern British dialect", LOL. He obviously must be referring to some sort of drag act queen, either that or Queen Latifah...
Here's a question. In non-UK schools, do you have English lessons? And if so, do those lessons teach English English, or the US variant? I'd be interested to hear answers on this. I've a sneaking suspicion that American English is taught everywhere except the UK, in which case, the English may as well relinquish any claim they have on the language as their own. I know many English people who are driven to apoplexy by the way American English is rapidly becoming more widespread than the mother tongue, but I can't see the point in getting wound up over inevitable situations. Similarly, those who decry the 'bastardisation' of English English into other dialects are wasting their time- most people I know of this ilk are easily offended when I point out that English is indeed made up of the languages of many races we have (recent) traditional differences with- Germany, France, Italy, Scandinavia etc.
On a lighter note, when are Disney bringing out their version of "The story of the English American language" ? Considering what they've done to half our legends, I think it's a subject they would be well suited to, and with their particular 'slant' on things, I'm sure they could transmogrify the truth into something the US cinema-goers would lap up!  ;D

Don't patronise me. A lot of people make general comments and they think they are right as well but they don't seem to show the same arrogance as you have portrayed. Your dialect is not 'lesser' or 'bastardised'.


I'd say that the post mine was in conjunction with not only matches me in arrogance, but outshines. And thank you, it is not.


Don't belittle my reaction to your post. A lot of people on the boards have been outraged by lesser things. I am an easy-going person who tries to avoid confrontation usually but I take annoyance to people who make unneccessary comments about my country like people may slight your dialect.

Did I say anything about the United Kingdom or more specifically the nation of England? I don't think I did, but if so, please point the comments out and I will gladly attemp to make ammends. I may have suggested that it is a popular notion over there that American English is not English at all... and it is a popular belief. You may not subscribe to this belief, but that doesn't change the outlook held by many of your comrades. Like I said, I've been schooled with British kids and yes, I have been to England. The establishment I work in is also patronised quite frequently with large groups of Brits. In any case, I hope that most Britons are like you, Bobby.


Modified to add: I had a look over the thread again and I also checked Andy's post (Alchoholica) and said that he was incorrect in what he said. He had a wink smiley next to the comment insinuating he was being tongue in cheek! The only person you seem to be defending yourself against (before I got involved) was Tanya - who isn't even British!


Tanya doesn't have to be British, she simply reminded me of the issue and so I thought it prudent to use the opportunity to say what I had to say on the matter.


So I would ask you to get over it as well.  :)


Consider it done.

I got dissapointed at these lines most of all, McDonald. Let me know if I have got these comments out of context. They seem pretty straight-forward to me.


With all that being said, let me give you a few of my opinions on British English.

-When spoken with received pronunciation it is pretty, but almost all regional dialects are ugly and annoying. (And it is my understanding that most British people do not use R.P.).

I have a very ugly accent/dialect (in comparison to many other ugly dialects). It was voted most unromantic in Britain in a poll a while ago and I get teased about it all the time (I am good humoured about it, mind). Yet I am proud of it because it is a part of me. I love the Yorkshire accent, Glaswegian accent and I even like the cockney accent.

The last hugely important novelist to come out of England (that I can recall off hand) was Anthony Burgess. He was a brilliant author, but he's dead now and you guys are going to have to furnish something new if you want to keep up. Your incredulous rantings about ownership of the "true" language are not going to hold a relevant position for you in this field.

It looks like this paragraph was directed at a British audience and, let's say British people say these things to you at school/work, the British people here (or any person outside the USA), like myself, would never dream of 'incredulously ranting' about ownership of any language. It's just ridiculous.

I am past the point of being irritated now, McDonald. I hope we can lay this to rest.  :)

There are three major English dialects; British, American, and Commonwealth.



You forgot Jive, or "Ebonics".  ???

I'd say that the post mine was in conjunction with not only matches me in arrogance, but outshines. And thank you, it is not.

I will leave that to you and Tanya then. In defence to her, it seemed as if she made a comment that was not meant to be directed at yourself in a personal manner. I am sure you can both reason this out. As for your last sentence, that is o.k.

Tanya doesn't have to be British, she simply reminded me of the issue and so I thought it prudent to use the opportunity to say what I had to say on the matter.

But it looked like you directed your following comments at the British people not Tanya.

Consider it done.

Cool.

I have a very ugly accent/dialect (in comparison to many other ugly dialects). It was voted most unromantic in Britain in a poll a while ago and I get teased about it all the time (I am good humoured about it, mind). Yet I am proud of it because it is a part of me.

It's a wonderful dialect, Bob...don't let that bother you...

The last hugely important novelist to come out of England (that I can recall off hand) was Anthony Burgess. He was a brilliant author, but he's dead now and you guys are going to have to furnish something new if you want to keep up. Your incredulous rantings about ownership of the "true" language are not going to hold a relevant position for you in this field.

McDonald? Shoot me if you like, but 'A Clockwork Orange' was tedious to the point of pain - but that's my opinion...and as far as I'm aware, no-one here has made any 'incredulous rantings' about 'our English' being better than anyone else's...whoever came out with that little gem (and you've mentioned no names thus far) needs their brain scraped...

To tell all British people who take this attitude the truth, quite frankly, I resent your elitist views on the language. American English is not a bastardisation of the English language anymore than is Cockney or Aussie English. There are three major English dialects; British, American, and Commonwealth. None of them is better or more pure than the other. What is the difference between American and British, really? I understand everything you say and vice versa. We have different accents (between which most foreigners can't even distinguish), we call a few things by different names, and we spell a few things differently. The idea that the English nation, let alone the UK, is united under a single, pure English language is absurd anyway. Stand at any point in England and listen to people speak, move five miles in any direction and you're hearing a totally different accent and dialect. You think that the voiceless "R" is so pure, but did you know that this evolution in British speech is relatively new, and that the reason we Americans/Canadians pronounce  our "R"s always is that we did not take part in the change (because we had a little something called the Atlantic ocean sitting between us). The "received pronunciation" of today did not exist two centuries ago except in a small portion of London whose dialect gained favour in the royal court, and thus, the whole country. There are still inward regions of England where the local dialect dictates the full pronunciations of "R"s. The participle "gotten" I maintain is purer than the "got" the British use today, for it (once again) used to be the standard all over the Anglo world, until popular British speech moved toward "got." The purity of the English language no longer shifts according to England's linguistic fancy. English people at one point were moving all over the globe and bringing the English language of their day with them, we Americans and Commonwealth citizens inherited their respective dialects the same way you inherited the popular speech of your fathers' day. All our respective countries used to be part of England, and just because our political definitions have changed, doesn't mean that the linguistic legitimacy of our dialects have become "lesser." No no, they are equally pure. Just because you happened to be born in the geographic region where the language began doesn't give you some preternatural dominion over our language. American English (at least when spoken correctly) is not lesser than any other dialect. That comment was particularly disappointing for me to hear out of you, Tanya.

With all that being said, let me give you a few of my opinions on British English.

-When spoken with received pronunciation it is pretty, but almost all regional dialects are ugly and annoying. (And it is my understanding that most British people do not use R.P.).

-Modern British Literature has become stagnate and unimportant. You can keep Nick Hornby and that annoying woman who wrote "Bridget Jones..." I'll take Chuck Palahniuk, Bret Easton Ellis, and David Sedaris any day of the week. I tried to read "High Fidelity" and got about 2/3 the way through it when I finally realised that if I went one page further I would stab myself out of boredom and disgust. Could literature get more poppy and bitchy? I don't think so. The last hugely important novelist to come out of England (that I can recall off hand) was Anthony Burgess. He was a brilliant author, but he's dead now and you guys are going to have to furnish something new if you want to keep up. Your incredulous rantings about ownership of the "true" language are not going to hold a relevant position for you in this field.

-I am an American and Canadian citizen, and though my natural dialect belongs to those labels, make no mistake that I can slip seamlessly into your dialect at any time of my choosing. Your dialect is not better than mine simply due to its geographical placement. To even suggest such a thing is (a) a little ignorant/arrogant, to be blunt about it, and (b). shows that your actual knowledge of the language's comparative history in the regions where it is spoken is limited. Our dialect is not a bastardised version of yours, it is one which has separately evolved from an earlier English... the same earlier English from which yours has separately evolved. I will say again that your dialect's geographic significance gives it no dominion as the right and true English.








I never called American English a bastard language, so your over-reading of what I posted is quite unfounded. I meant that American English evolved from Anglo-Saxon English as well as other languages blended in. Why YOU would call it a bastard language may be found in what you feel about the language. Stop over-reading posts. If you have questions, ask before you get over-preachy over something that wasn't there in the first place.

I was speaking of my own experience. I love the English language. I love it so much I have two Bachelor's degrees in it. What I do not like is the lazy use of it on a daily basis. What I've found unfortunate is that others in this country want non-Americans to adopt the language to fit their need to get ahead (or be ahead). Hell, I can't ever bear to hear Bush give a speech b/c just by hearing "the leader of the free-world" talk, it perpetuates "the lazy/ignorant American" syndrome that is growing steadfast across the world. As a teacher, I have to correct the language many of my students come into the classroom with. I'm not getting into syntax, phoneme usage, etc for fear of boredom here. But, it does carry over into writing and grammar as well.

I was speaking as a lover of the language. I love my country, but do not accept my love for my country, as a love (and acceptance) of a misused language.

Tanya

I never called American English a bastard language, so your over-reading of what I posted is quite unfounded. I meant that American English evolved from Anglo-Saxon English as well as other languages blended in. Why YOU would call it a bastard language may be found in what you feel about the language. Stop over-reading posts. If you have questions, ask before you get over-preachy over something that wasn't there in the first place.

I was speaking of my own experience. I love the English language. I love it so much I have two Bachelor's degrees in it. What I do not like is the lazy use of it on a daily basis. What I've found unfortunate is that others in this country want non-Americans to adopt the language to fit their need to get ahead (or be ahead). Hell, I can't ever bear to hear Bush give a speech b/c just by hearing "the leader of the free-world" talk, it perpetuates "the lazy/ignorant American" syndrome that is growing steadfast across the world. As a teacher, I have to correct the language many of my students come into the classroom with. I'm not getting into syntax, phoneme usage, etc for fear of boredom here. But, it does carry over into writing and grammar as well.

I was speaking as a lover of the language. I love my country, but do not accept my love for my country, as a love (and acceptance) of a misused language.

Tanya


Tanya, I didn't quote you as calling American a bastard language... I quoted you as calling it a "lesser version than true English." This really wasn't aimed at you, and while I admittedly mistook you for a British person (for which I apologise), your post merely brought up a point that I thought was important. You didn't call American "bastadised" (Alcoholica did, but that's not important). The point of my post was to at least attempt to set the record straight with those British people (be they members of this board or not) who take the described attitude toward American English.

Standard American English is not lazy or a misuse of English. I admit that most of the people here do misuse it, but it's the same for all dialects of all languages. So I don't think dubbing American English as a "lesser version than true English" was entirely correct... perhaps to say "popular American colloquial speech" would be a little more specific. It isn't a big deal who said what, the point I was trying to make with my post is still true. With my apologies I would ask you to just forget that it was in response to something of yours, and simply let it stand on its own.

McDonald? Shoot me if you like, but 'A Clockwork Orange' was tedious to the point of pain - but that's my opinion...


It would be a shame to judge all his work based on that novel alone, though I do adore it, admittedly. He really was quite prolific. "One Hand Clapping" was very enjoyable and entirely different from "Clockwork Orange" in style. I look foward to reading a few more of his works.

It's a wonderful dialect, Bob...don't let that bother you...

That is much appreciated, Paul lol.

McDonald? Shoot me if you like, but 'A Clockwork Orange' was tedious to the point of pain - but that's my opinion...and as far as I'm aware, no-one here has made any 'incredulous rantings' about 'our English' being better than anyone else's...whoever came out with that little gem (and you've mentioned no names thus far) needs their brain scraped...

I don't know where McDonald got that from. I have never heard anybody in Britain (I know a few) have ever said anything like this (in front of Americans or not).

McDonald, have you referred to my previous posts yet?

Tanya, if I looked into your first post more than I should I apologise as well.  ;)

Guys, it's cool!

Tanya

In many ways, English is the "Lingua Franca" of the modern world.  This is mostly due to both technological influence, and colonization.

England's colonies covered 6 out of 7 continents in the world.  And several of these (USA, Canada, Australia, India) are still major influences both world-wide and in their local area.  In many of these areas, English became a good "common ground" language, because of the large numbers of local and tribal languages.

In India, there are a large number of languages.  To give an idea, one of the "Official Languages" is Hindi.  But Hindi also has over 13 different dialects!  Urdu is also an "Official Language".  But because this came from Persia (Muslim), most Indians do not like to use it.  And to add even more confustion, in India, Urdu is written in a Hindi script!  In fact, the Indian COnstitution recognizes
18 official languages!

http://adaniel.tripod.com/languagelist.htm

Needless to say, English became (and still is to this day) a great "common language".  Because it holds no regional preference, things can be said that will not cause prejudice because they are not from "your region".

Then add in the influence of technology.  Air flight started in the US, and most of the major developers (Hughes, Boeing, Mcdonald-Douglas, Wright-Curtis, Northrop, etc) were major contributors to this development.  In computers, nobody can deny that IBM was the single most influential company in this area.  And because English is the parent language in the country that these companies originated in, that would be their major language.

Of course, then there is France.  They actually have laws to prevent "language pollution"!  The Académie Française is a group of eletist French who have worked for over 300 years to keep the French Language Pure.  Of course, this group was founded by Cardinal Richelieu during the reign of King Louis XIII.  (For those who think Cardinal Richelieu sounds familiar, the was the villan in "The THree Musketeers".)

http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/News/English_invasion.shtml

Personally, I just think France is jealous that the world seems to be going "Lingua English" instead of "Lingua Franca".  :P

Myself, I think it is great when one language gets influence from another.  Going to a resteraunt that advertised "Raw Fish" would not be as appealing as one that sells "Sushi".  And imagine getting "Foamy Coffee", instead of espresso.  And the French should remember, nobody over here would want to order "chilled snails" or "cold potato soup", but a lot of people order escargo and Vichyssoise.  And a lot of people order pie "a'la mode" and get meals "a'la carte".

As far as Esperanto, other then at the UN, it is largely a dead language.  The only case where I can remember it being used in a movie is in "The Great Dictator" (1940) by Charlie Chaplin.  In all of the scenes in the Jewish Ghetto, the signs were all writte in Esperanto.  A good common language for diplomats, but not much use otherwise.  Serves about the same purpose as Latin does for the Roman Catholic Church.

I don't know where McDonald got that from. I have never heard anybody in Britain (I know a few) have ever said anything like this (in front of Americans or not).

McDonald, have you referred to my previous posts yet?


I don't think I have left even one of them unanswered. You've even responded to some of my answers... I don't think I quite catch your train of thought.

You must realise that even though you claim that you've never met anyone who takes my described attitude towards American English, this doesn't mean that there are none who exist. It also doesn't mean that some of the people you know don't think this way... perhaps the subject has never come up. The point is that this attitude exists and must be fairly widespread, judging from my own experience in dealing with British people where a good number of them act quite smugly on the matter. Take a gander at the tone in Goodsin's post. Sure, he doesn't say that British English is better... but he gets a good kick out of 'Americans defending a language that originated elsewhere." I don't judge the whole of Britain by the actions of a percentage... which means I neither assume that all british people are smug toward Americans based on people like Goodsin, nor do I assume that they are all as open minded as you, Bobby. Fact: the attitude exists. Fact: I have a huge problem with it. Fact: the attitude's precepts are based on false assumptions. My post was to call these facts to attention and where needed, into question. I admit I put a few opinions of my own, but I did not fail to introduce them as such. I did not attempt to disguise them as fact. Unfortunately they have only served to obfuscate my intentions. I suspect it is actually by these opinions that you have been offended. I will remove them from the original post. However, to deny the existence of the attitude I've described just won't do. It's there and it needed to be dealt with.

I don't think I have left even one of them unanswered. You've even responded to some of my answers... I don't think I quite catch your train of thought.

I made a post a while back. You seem to have answered this in your penultimate sentence.

You must realise that even though you claim that you've never met anyone who takes my described attitude towards American English, this doesn't mean that there are none who exist. It also doesn't mean that some of the people you know don't think this way... perhaps the subject has never come up. The point is that this attitude exists and must be fairly widespread, judging from my own experience in dealing with British people where a good number of them act quite smugly on the matter. Take a gander at the tone in Goodsin's post. Sure, he doesn't say that British English is better... but he gets a good kick out of 'Americans defending a language that originated elsewhere." I don't judge the whole of Britain by the actions of a percentage... which means I neither assume that all british people are smug toward Americans based on people like Goodsin, nor do I assume that they are all as open minded as you, Bobby. Fact: the attitude exists. Fact: I have a huge problem with it. Fact: the attitude's precepts are based on false assumptions. My post was to call these facts to attention and where needed, into question. I admit I put a few opinions of my own, but I did not fail to introduce them as such. I did not attempt to disguise them as fact. Unfortunately they have only served to obfuscate my intentions. I suspect it is actually by these opinions that you have been offended. I will remove them from the original post. However, to deny the existence of the attitude I've described just won't do. It's there and it needed to be dealt with.


O.k. I appreciate you feel this way, McDonald and will not accept responsibility for other people. However, in the grand scheme of things, as mentioned earlier, this is a minor issue (not trying to make light of your obvious irritation on the subject) that can be taken as sensitive as you like. If you feel this is an issue, ignore the people who are obviously trying to get under your skin.

Thank you for accepting me as open-minded.  ;)

Personally, I just think France is jealous that the world seems to be going "Lingua English" instead of "Lingua Franca".  :P


Be careful, Mushroom. Joking or not, this type of comment/attitude is what McDonald is accusing some British people of saying/having .

As far as Esperanto, other then at the UN, it is largely a dead language.  The only case where I can remember it being used in a movie is in "The Great Dictator" (1940) by Charlie Chaplin.  In all of the scenes in the Jewish Ghetto, the signs were all writte in Esperanto.  A good common language for diplomats, but not much use otherwise.  Serves about the same purpose as Latin does for the Roman Catholic Church.


Bull. There are thousands of books published in the language, there are magazines and newspapers published in the language, and its estimated to have about 5 million speakers worldwide. It is hardly dead.

Bull. There are thousands of books published in the language, there are magazines and newspapers published in the language, and its estimated to have about 5 million speakers worldwide. It is hardly dead.


I think you totally missed the point I was making.

And yes, there are thousands of books and periodicals published in Latin also.  But my point is, it is not a breathing, living language.  It is a closed language, where for every speaker, it is a "second language".  This is the case for Latin, where other then the Roman Catholic Church, it is hardly ever used other then by scholars.

Hebrew was in much the same condition until the last half of the 20th century.  For thousands of years, it had become a religious language, and other then changes in dialect and addition of new words had not changed.  Only with the creation of Israel did it once again start to change significantly.

I do not mean dead as in "no longer used" or "is worthless", I mean dead as in static and unchanging.  This is the case of any language which is either no longer used on a daily basis(Latin), is not anybodies main language (Esperanto), or a language which is no longer used at all (Sanscrit).

I think that Esperanto does have it's use.  As a diplomatic language, it is a great choice.  This can allow diplomats (businessmen, periodicals, etc) to converse in a common language, and allow many people from all over the world to converse without having to learn multiple languages.

The point is that this attitude exists and must be fairly widespread, judging from my own experience in dealing with British people where a good number of them act quite smugly on the matter. Take a gander at the tone in Goodsin's post. Sure, he doesn't say that British English is better... but he gets a good kick out of 'Americans defending a language that originated elsewhere." I don't judge the whole of Britain by the actions of a percentage... which means I neither assume that all british people are smug toward Americans based on people like Goodsin, nor do I assume that they are all as open minded as you, Bobby. Fact: the attitude exists. Fact: I have a huge problem with it.

I'd agree that the attitude does exist, I've made allusion to it in my post. Personally, it's not something that eats at me on a daily basis, but I do know plenty of people who feel constantly aggrieved at the way Americans have adapted the English language. The reason I said "it's also quite a giggle to see Americans defending a language that originated elsewhere against 'foreigners'", is just the irony that the language did not originate in the US, yet someone used the term 'foreigners' for non-US speakers of the English language.

I wouldn't say my feelings extend to being "smug" about this issue. What is there to be smug about? We speak English English in England, anyone else who speaks English speaks their version of it, fair enough. As the language originated in England, there will always be English people who consider modifications by other users to be negative or inferior- I think this attitude stems back to the dissolution of the British Empire, the standard English language has been one of the few items of British identity we could cling onto. Time has told that we can't even cling onto that in a pure form, so the attitude McD describes is a result of the English despair at losing the final vestiges of it's national identity. Don't take it so hard, we don't own the language, do what you want with it- the US version is going to be more widespread than the original soon anyway!