Have you ever been "Yank Bashed"?

dreamer20

Worshipped Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Posts
7,963
Media
3
Likes
19,699
Points
643
Gender
Male
Recently I was attempting to chat with a "Brit" who used a word I didn't understand -- soz. When I asked what it meant, he laughed and informed me that "he spoke proper English and I didn't." I replied, what do you expect? I'm American, therefore I speak American. "Exactly, you speak a corrupted form of English."

Curious, I searched the few posts he had made, and found both grammatical and spelling errors in them...

As a person who studied in Britain in the past I found that some of my British peers snapped at me when I used "American" terms in speaking. I explained to them that although I am British I adapted "Americanisms" as the speech of Bermudans is also influenced by the neighboring U.S.A. I advised them to simply tell me what British term should be used instead and so it was done. They never snapped at me again.

You don't speak a corrupted form of English MegaDick. Persons from different English speaking regions of the world, and Great Britain too, have developed different dialects.

Such differences were discussed in the thread Accents:

Accents
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Blue Ridge Mountain - I went to school in Dublin - and we were taught the the Hiberno-English was a more grammatically exact form of the language - I think you'll find teachers in Aus explaining why the Aussie form is best, and teachers in Torronto explaining why 'aboot' is a more exact pronunciation - in short - it is all a load of BS. There are many different types of English and they are all of the 'now'. None of them more or less 'correct' than the others...

I've also read about the 'Elizabethan' Ozark English. Load of hogwash IMO. English is a living breathing language perhaps better able than any other to absorb and adapt and even when such adaptations are extreme in the form of Pidgins it can still with a little effort be understood, certainly by a native speaker.

And what do you mean by OLD ENGLISH anyway? Beowulf is in Old English - do they talk like that? Or do you mean the more medieval Middle English - as in Chaucer? Or do you mean early Modern English? Like Shakespeare (you probably do, I know I'm being pedantic!)

Pendantry is an English trait....Old English is not really recognisable as English at all and 'Middle English' which is as you say the language of Chaucer is (just) recognisable as English at first sight. The Language of the Elizabethan era was well on the road, (helped ably by the Bard) to becoming what we know today.

Plus - there is no such language as modern day British... never was a British language - there have been various languages used as a lingua france across Britain and the surrounding isles - Latin, vairous Celtic dialects, French, English - but to the best of my (vast and large headed) knowledge - never 'British'

Exactly, British is not a language as one could also argue Britain is not a nation but a collection of nations, so British English is one dialect of English, perhaps the original but still, today just one of many.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Some linguists believe that it's the other way 'round - that American English has degraded less since the colonial period than have the various forms spoken in England. This has even been mentioned on this very forum before, inspiring the expected squeals of outrage.

I've read the same, and agree to some degree, certainly there appears to be far less variation in terms of dialect in the US than in the UK, even more so considered proportionately. I would agree than in daily use the English of George III is closer to modern American English than it is to modern British English. Of course that's hard to prove definitively and outside the scope of LPSG.

The spelling divergences seem to be the fault of Noah Webster and his abortive attempt to regularize spelling. Hence wagon/waggon, color/colour, reflection/reflexion, civilization/civilisation, paleontology/palaeontology. Post-Revolution neologisms are different, such as names for parts of cars (one never drives in America with a "fully laden boot"), tools (Whitworth spanners, ugh) and electronic components (we don't have "thermionic valves" or "condensors" here)........

Noah Webster was an arrogant ass but his dictionary, for all it's faults was a work of genius. Shame he wasn't as astute in business! There have been so many scare stories about imminent mutual unintelligibility of the various dialects it's a joke. I'm more worried about the decline in general educational standards leading eventually to a generation that cannot communicate properly with it's parents than I am about general lingusitic drift. TV, the Internet, global travel and so on have put paid to that worry.

The two languages are essentially identical, far more so than, say, Russian and Ukrainian, which don't even have identical alphabets. It's not easy to argue that they're even dialects.

Yes, of course they are though, I suppose that depends on how you define a 'dialect':

Here's one:

"Everyone speaks a particular dialect, i.e. a particular type of English distinguished by its vocabulary and its grammar. Different parts of the world and different groups of people speak different dialects: for example, Australians may say arvo while others say afternoon, and a London Cockney may say I done it while most other people say I did it. A dialect is not the same thing as an accent, which is the way a person pronounces words."

To say they're not would be to deny the existence of for example the dialects of the southern states with those of the NE seaboard. Unless of course you hold that the English of New Orleans and that of say Boston are in fact separate languages which would be patently absurd.

The higher-class the writing, the harder the two are to distinguish. American writers try a bit harder, perhaps, than their English counterparts, to write to a common standard. In England one would never confuse articles written for the Times with those written for an automotive magazine. As one moves down the sociological ladder some peculiarities emerge, such as the dearth of commas, and the addition of exclamation points at the ends of sentences to clue readers in that the author has just cracked a joke. You won't see that in the Times or in general American writing.

I agree that's more targeted at social and educational sub groups than linguistic variance for it's own sake as you suggest. I do agree that the wrtings of academia are broadly indistingushable on each side of the pond, down the the 'ize' suffix. But I would argue that academic writing is sufficiently removed from the day to day language to be considered a dialect in its own right. You would no doubt disagree.

But, I suppose it would make sense to just start calling it American, as that's where most of the speakers are. The UK, Republic of Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Tasmania, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Trinidad, Belize, the Philippines, and maybe some enclaves in Argentina have most of the native speakers, and of course by far the most populous of those is the US [English speakers - not the greatest population overall -- Ed.].

For now, though it's estimated that by 2025 the number of English speaking Chinese will outnumber the rest of the world's native English speakers.

It's all a lot of excitement over a language which I believe is, in fact, a creole, or a naturalized pidgin.

The argument that English, or rather Middle English developed as a creole or Pidgin from Middle English is one I've head before. Old English as you will know is itself only parts of old Frisian, Saxon and Norse with Latin and other influences anyway and itself had mutually unintelligible dialects.

The Norman inflence, the many upheavals of the 14th and 15th centuries, the formation of the so called 'Chancery Standard' etc led to greater overall standardisation. The development, if you will of a 'Lingua Franca' or as it fits the definition quite nicely a pidgin. But a pidgin is not a stable language and must creole or die. The nativisation of this pidgin into Middle English would to all intents and purpose make it a creole from whence it could develop into Modern English. In so far as this fits neatly with the defintions of pidgins and creoles I think the concept has merit. But I'm not sure it's quite that simple.

I'm not sure it's excitment, so much as appreciation of what is a great language. Your language suggests that it's somehow less worthy for its origins (as you believe them to be)?
 

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
Pendantry is an English trait....

I'M IRISH!!!! :mad: :wink:

Exactly, British is not a language as one could also argue Britain is not a nation but a collection of nations, so British English is one dialect of English, perhaps the original but still, today just one of many.

British English doesn't exist either, mate.. crap loads of dialects across the UK - several in each country...
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
I'M IRISH!!!! :mad: :wink:

I was talking about myself. But congratulations anyway.:smile:

British English doesn't exist either, mate.. crap loads of dialects across the UK - several in each country...

You mean county right. Well yes you're right in strict terms but I was talking at the macro not micro level, there are dialects down to village level.

I think it's reasonable to use the term British English, as one would say Australian English and American English. One can dig deeper but then while the variations found may be more pronounced they are narrower in scope.
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
60
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
But, I suppose it would make sense to just start calling it American, as that's where most of the speakers are. The UK, Republic of Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Tasmania, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Trinidad, Belize, the Philippines, and maybe some enclaves in Argentina have most of the native speakers, and of course by far the most populous of those is the US [English speakers - not the greatest population overall -- Ed.]. It's all a lot of excitement over a language which I believe is, in fact, a creole, or a naturalized pidgin.

Either you are dense, joking, or just not being clear in your definition of "most." India has about 350,000,000 English speakers. Compare that to about 251,000,000 in the US. I would say 99,000,000 more English speakers in India than the US makes them a much larger English speaking population. In that case, i guess it makes sence to start calling it "Indian."
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Either you are dense, joking, or just not being clear in your definition of "most." India has about 350,000,000 English speakers. Compare that to about 251,000,000 in the US. I would say 99,000,000 more English speakers in India than the US makes them a much larger English speaking population. In that case, i guess it makes sence to start calling it "Indian."
Don't be a jerk. Native speakers. If I meant just any speakers of English I'd have put China, Denmark, and the Netherlands in the list. If you think that India has a third of a billion native speakers of English, you'd better have a good source.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Yes, of course they are though, I suppose that depends on how you define a 'dialect':

Here's one:

"Everyone speaks a particular dialect, i.e. a particular type of English distinguished by its vocabulary and its grammar. Different parts of the world and different groups of people speak different dialects: for example, Australians may say arvo while others say afternoon, and a London Cockney may say I done it while most other people say I did it. A dialect is not the same thing as an accent, which is the way a person pronounces words."

To say they're not would be to deny the existence of for example the dialects of the southern states with those of the NE seaboard. Unless of course you hold that the English of New Orleans and that of say Boston are in fact separate languages which would be patently absurd.

I agree that's more targeted at social and educational sub groups than linguistic variance for it's own sake as you suggest. I do agree that the wrtings of academia are broadly indistingushable on each side of the pond, down the the 'ize' suffix. But I would argue that academic writing is sufficiently removed from the day to day language to be considered a dialect in its own right. You would no doubt disagree.
Educated English, written in grammatically correct form, is essentially indistinguishable, whether written in Boston, New York, Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, or London. The few distinguishing features are mainly some minor spelling changes (artificially introduced by Webster, and so not evidence of any sort of drift), some recent neologisms (hard to avoid over two centuries), a tendency in London to treat the names of corporations as plurals ("Harrod's have elephants in stock" vs. "Harrod's has elephants in stock"), and a very minor difference in abbreviating some sentences ("I should mail in my taxes; really, I should do" vs. "I should mail in my taxes; really, I should.") This isn't "academic" writing, but the writing one would routinely see in the Times (either one).This is the rationale for my claim that American English and English English are not really different dialects. The differences are too trivial. However, independent of that, American English or English English as spoken by fishmongers or cabbies or rappers might or might not be considered dialects.

The argument that English, or rather Middle English developed as a creole or Pidgin from Middle English is one I've head before. Old English as you will know is itself only parts of old Frisian, Saxon and Norse with Latin and other influences anyway and itself had mutually unintelligible dialects.
I've yet to see the theory developed, but it seems obvious enough to me. The textbooks usually lump Modern English in with the Germanic languages, particularly close to Frisian. I'm reluctant to agree with that classification, for structural reasons. Old English/Anglo-Saxon, Frisian, Old Norse, Faroese, Dutch, High German, Low German, and Icelandic are Germanic languages, no argument there. But Modern English is a hash of vocabulary from Old English, Old Norse, Frisian, Brythonic and Goidelic languages, Church Latin, Norman French (itself with a hefy Old Norse component), and a bit of Pictish, all strung together with a grammar entirely different from any of them. All of which says, to me, "pidgin", leading of course to a creole.
I'm not sure it's excitment, so much as appreciation of what is a great language. Your language suggests that it's somehow less worthy for its origins (as you believe them to be)?
I suggested no such thing.

I made a hint that squawking over which bit of dirt is home to the more original pidgin is a bit silly. No pidgin is "original", by the very nature of pidgins.
 

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
I'M IRISH!!!! :mad: :wink:

I was talking about myself. But congratulations anyway.:smile:

Well - you can see how the confusion arose.. I refer to myself as pedantic, you say it is an English trait - you have no location in your profile and I guess I haven't read enough of your posts to notice any overt Englishness - though it's fairly obvious here... (I'm mean that neutrally, as an observation - intended as neither complement nor insult)


British English doesn't exist either, mate.. crap loads of dialects across the UK - several in each country...

You mean county right. No - I mean country - there are 3 countries Britain - England can subdivided into counties - Welsh and Scottish subdivisions are more complicated for reasons of tradition, history, politics, etc. Well yes you're right in strict terms Yes , I am - stop typing right there :tongue: but I was talking at the macro not micro level semantics, there are dialects down to village level. there are variations down to a village level - 'dialects' may be too broad a word for that, but I see you getting into tha conflab elsewhere and can read your comments there

I think it's reasonable to use the term British English, as one would say Australian English and American English. One can dig deeper but then while the variations found may be more pronounced they are narrower in scope.

Well I guess I know the UK a lot better than US / Aus but I would say the variations across the UK are too great to lump together, but then I think that is true of the US too - However, if you are talking about the grammar and spelling conventions they (attempt to) teach in school, and not about accents and colloquialisms, then you have a point.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
It could certainly be argued that English is as native a language in India as it is in America. What makes a language "native", that it develops in said country or that people learn it from birth? English sure didn't develop here, but we consider ourselves native speakers. English is the primary language in India, and arguably the primary way that a nation of over 200 colloqial languages communicates internally. There has been a great deal of dispute about the issue of a national language in India, they really don't want one at all. If one were to be named, more people would prefer English to Hindi since English is seen as neutral, and not showing preference to one region or dialect.

English was installed in India just as it was here by British imperialists, who were likewise thrown out on their asses. We have more in common than one would assume.

"English" is named after England, now called Great Britian. When someone says "British English" they are simply avoiding the ridiculousness of saying "English English" when referring to its country of origin.:rolleyes:
 

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
What percentage of Britts speak 'received' english, or even know what the term means?

Certainly the victorian, schoolmasterly english spoken in 'Inja" is as valid as any other local variation, such as Hong Kong, or Jamaican, or Gullah.
 

PokeSalad

Experimental Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Posts
43
Media
2
Likes
17
Points
153
Location
Texas
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Yes it is, that's I said when I wrote:



I should perhaps have used dialect but derivation came to mind first....

You said :



You didn't qualify that as American English and while I didn't take that as implying you believed American was a de facto language I'd say the implication is there.


LOL Dude, the question was "have you ever been yank bashed?" NOT Do you want to be rude and bash my writing too? ROFLMAO
 

MegaDick

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Posts
88
Media
0
Likes
39
Points
163
Location
Louisiana
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
How did this htread turn into and argument? Only on LPSG. LOL


That's what I've been asking myself! This was not intended as a linguistic debate at all, just a simple question to learn if others had been rudely criticized on line for merely being American. The quoted dialogue was to illustrate that my English is NOT deficient!

My thanks to the few of you who addressed the issue directly.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
It could certainly be argued that English is as native a language in India as it is in America. What makes a language "native", that it develops in said country or that people learn it from birth? English sure didn't develop here, but we consider ourselves native speakers. English is the primary language in India, and arguably the primary way that a nation of over 200 colloqial languages communicates internally. There has been a great deal of dispute about the issue of a national language in India, they really don't want one at all. If one were to be named, more people would prefer English to Hindi since English is seen as neutral, and not showing preference to one region or dialect.

Quite true. Though I'm not sure you could classify English as the primary language in India, on numerical grounds anyway - perhaps 10% speak it? and very few of them as a first language. That number is growing though, fast. That is unless you include 'Hinglish' which it's estimated is spoken, or at least understood by 350m.

English is prevalent in business, Government and among the 'educated' (at least that was my impression when I was last there) and for bilingual speakers it's often their second tongue - I think over 95% of English in India is spoken as a second language. The 1991 Indian census listed English as a non scheduled language spoken as a mother tongue by just under 200,000.

"English" is named after England, now called Great Britian. When someone says "British English" they are simply avoiding the ridiculousness of saying "English English" when referring to its country of origin.:rolleyes:

Well yes historically English was so called, prior to the acts of union.

On that note just a minor correction; England is still England and so called. Great Britain - is the union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and British English in theory at least reflects that union. That said, the English spoken in the English home counties and the English spoken in Glasgow or say, Tyneside (or any number of places with prononced regional dialects) sometime seem very close to being mutually unintelligible.

However, assuming both speakers have a reasonable level of education, switching to a more generic British English, will usually smooth out most of the wrinkles. I suspect a similar parallel applies in the US, certainly by the experiences I've had there I think it does.