Use of proper grammar and standard English.

[SimonDoom]

Which is absolutely fair enough. The disingenuous points people have been making about the English spoken in other countries are an attempt to claim parity for these "offshoots" - as if in some way they evolved in parallel with that spoken in England rather than, as is obviously the case, branching away from it.

The only "standard English" as such is English English. You can have, I suppose (not "I guess"), "standard US English" or even "standard Nigerian English", if it comes to that - but there is only one original. All others are corruptions of it. Use a different word if you insist but you will not find me saying "A men met these two other min as he stepped out of the drugstore onto the sidewalk" any time soon. Such an "imperialist", I am...

This makes no sense at all and does not describe how language evolves. So-called "English English" evolves. The English of today is different from the English of 200 years ago, or 400 years ago, or 600 years ago. There absolutely is no such thing as a "definitive" version of the language. Language is constantly evolving, and it always has. The concept of "corruption" in language has no place. If that were true, one would have to say that the English were constantly corrupting their own language, and that Modern English is a corruption of Middle English.

I think a little Brit-Yank trash talk back and forth can be amusing and entertaining, but by no means should be taken seriously.

We've rid the language of all those unnecessary U's. I think that's admirable.

More puzzlingly, we got rid of the I in aluminium. It's shorter, but it's not consistent with the way we write most other elements.

I personally enjoy the varieties of English, and I cannot imagine pitying that we don't all write exactly the same way.

 

[SimonDoom]

My goodness! So much ego!

I love English because it's not standard. A language that is alive, that changes, that grows? That's an interesting language, no matter where it comes from. English is like that. It gleefully accepts droves of new usages, recycles old ones, and plays with both. It is ever-changing and ever-fascinating.

Unlike French, where those dour assholes in Paris keep trying to maintain its "purity." Fuck that shit.

I read a piece in (I think?) BBC about how, shockingly, it turns out the "purest" form of proper 18th-century French is actually the dialect spoken in Quebec. The "real" Francophones in "real" France were shocked at that research, mostly because they consider Quebec French to be rustic. What they fail to realize is what we Anglophones understand in our bones: that language is GOING TO change, whether we like it or not.

So by all means, those of you who insist on some perceived "perfect English," keep your fingers in the dikes. See how that works out for you.

I like "fingers in the dikes." That's a perfect metaphor. It's truly that futile and silly.

I think the differences are fun, and I cannot understand how someone who purports to love reading could possibly deplore them. I can't imagine a British author having written "Huckleberry Finn." And I can't imagine an American author writing Lucky Jim by Kingsley Amis. Or the differences in styles of detective novels -- Dorothy Sayers compared to Raymond Chandler. How could one want them to write in the same way?

 

[ElectricBlue]

.We've rid the language of all those unnecessary U's. I think that's admirable.

Yo've jst made langage into some kind of dde speak, doing that.

You need to labour over your colours more, Simon, whilst out on the harbour. Your favourite story title wouldn't be the same without a "u". That's just a silly prejdice to have.

Carry on .

 

[Kumquatqueen]

I can't imagine a British author having written "Huckleberry Finn." And I can't imagine an American author writing Lucky Jim by Kingsley Amis. Or the differences in styles of detective novels -- Dorothy Sayers compared to Raymond Chandler. How could one want them to write in the same way?

Odd example, given that Raymond Chandler spent his formative years in England, attended Dulwich College a couple years after PG Wodehouse (their writing is remarkably similar!), and became not only a UK citizen but a civil servant, before returning to America.

A very different style to Dorothy Sayers for sure, but you can't really blame the differences on country.

 

[Athalia]

This makes no sense at all and does not describe how language evolves. So-called "English English" evolves. The English of today is different from the English of 200 years ago, or 400 years ago, or 600 years ago. There absolutely is no such thing as a "definitive" version of the language. Language is constantly evolving, and it always has. The concept of "corruption" in language has no place. If that were true, one would have to say that the English were constantly corrupting their own language, and that Modern English is a corruption of Middle English.

That's true. The British English of today is not the same as the British English of 300 years ago, any more than American English is not the same as American English of 300 years ago (which actually was identical to British English). Language changes with varying usage, and with collisions with other languages and cultures.

I personally enjoy the varieties of English, and I cannot imagine pitying that we don't all write exactly the same way.

Agreed. As long as the varieties are mutually intelligible, I see no harm in preserving the various dialects of American English, Canadian English, British English, Australian English, South African English, or any other brand of English. They are as "fusion" as cuisine, mixing flavors and spices and cooking methods with impunity, creating new combinations that delight our palates. Language is no different.

On the subject of writing accents, Mark Twain said it best, in the prologue for Huckleberry Finn:

EXPLANATORY

In this book a number of dialects are used, to wit: the Missouri negro dialect; the extremest form of the backwoods Southwestern dialect; the ordinary “Pike County” dialect; and four modified varieties of this last. The shadings have not been done in a haphazard fashion, or by guesswork; but painstakingly, and with the trustworthy guidance and support of personal familiarity with these several forms of speech.

I make this explanation for the reason that without it many readers would suppose that all these characters were trying to talk alike and not succeeding.

THE AUTHOR.

 

[SimonDoom]

Odd example, given that Raymond Chandler spent his formative years in England, attended Dulwich College a couple years after PG Wodehouse (their writing is remarkably similar!), and became not only a UK citizen but a civil servant, before returning to America.

A very different style to Dorothy Sayers for sure, but you can't really blame the differences on country.

Good point! I think of Chandler's style as different and more American, but I may need to take a look at it again.

 

[TheRedChamber]

My goodness! So much ego!

I love English because it's not standard. A language that is alive, that changes, that grows? That's an interesting language, no matter where it comes from. English is like that. It gleefully accepts droves of new usages, recycles old ones, and plays with both. It is ever-changing and ever-fascinating.

Unlike French, where those dour assholes in Paris keep trying to maintain its "purity." Fuck that shit.

I'd argue that any language (much like any government or any society) needs walk a fine balance between having control and having freedom. I've come to the conclusion that, while language evoluation is inevitable and desirable, it is the job of the young to change the language and the job of the old (myself) to be grumpy about it. In fifty years time, the youngsters will have come to realize that 50 percent of their changes (to language, fashion, music) were justified and worthwhile and will still use them and the other 50 percent were cringeworthy, badly-thoughtout and only used in nostalgic period-dramas.

 

[ElectricBlue]

the youngsters will have come to realize that 50 percent of their changes (to language, fashion, music) were justified and worthwhile and will still use them and the other 50 percent were cringeworthy, badly-thoughtout and only used in nostalgic period-dramas.

This. Did anyone ever say, ever, "Hey man, that's cool, far out, daddy-o"?

Although I did say, off my face one night, "Far out, far in, tractor," with some apparent meaning which I no longer recall.

 

[MetaBob]

A really fun video about weak forms and strong words in English. Brilliant!

 

[Duleigh]

To what extent would this be acceptable for my characters in a few future stories (I have up to three in mind, with the same male lead throughout) to talk this way, or would it likely be flagged?

I too am an English Major (unfortunately retired on an American Sergeant's salary) and I have a couple of characters from South Georgia whose accent is "thicker than the gravy on yer mornin' biscuit" and I never had a problem. I've seen some horrific grammatical sins out there, read any story with a 3 or lower voter score and you'll wonder what their native language really is, but Laurel kept her flag in her pocket and her whistle unused. Write what you know and you'll do fine.

 

[Trionyx]

In every country but the US Laurel keeps her card in her pocket.

 

[PennameWombat]

I think the French are still seething that the on-court interviews at the French Tennis Open were conducted in English (American English, as I recall). All of the pro tennis players seem to speak English well (which should be an embarrassment to most Americans, including me, who has studied three foreign languages with no good result). I wonder how many of them are fluent in French.

Late to this conversation, but soccer has brought me into contact with many varieties of English.

Years back, I played on a team that was mostly guys from Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. There were two of us native Americans and an Iranian. “What the fuck are you guys saying?” was a phrase us three used more than once to our Caribbean teammates, especially when a game was going poorly and they were arguing with each other. Yeah, it was English… of a sort .

Later years, a Glaswegian-born buddy of mine and I were both living in New York at the time. His English, to my ear, was strongly accented. But my main task was weaning him from using the word ‘cunt’ in every third sentence . He used it as an all-purpose filler, including as a term of endearment. ”Ach… ya great cunt!”

That… did not go over well most of the time. Fortunately, I managed to smooth things over when we weren’t amongst folks who understood and fisticuffs were avoided. Close run thing at times…

We used to watch the Celtic - Rangers football (soccer) games on a big screen at the Irish-American club in Kearny, NJ. We were Celtic supporters. The Rangers supporters (bluenoses) were a few blocks over, at the Scottish-American club. I used to love how thick the accents turned about twenty or so minutes into the match, especially if the ‘fucking mason in black’ (aka, the ref, this was long enough ago the refs still wore black except on very rare occasions) made a suspicious (in our minds) call against the Bhoys. I, and a few of the American-born sons of the immigrants who made up the bulk of the (forty-strong or so) viewing audience, used to look at each other and shrug.

Anyway, back to why I picked Keith’s quote and avoided others… after a match where Celtic forced a win with a late goal, they interviewed three Celtic players. A native Scot and two Norwegians who wore the Hoops (played for Celtic), one of whom had scored the winning goal. The Scot’s accent was quite thick… but both Norwegians could’ve gotten jobs as announcers for the BBC .

One last soccer-related anecdote. Kasey Keller was a backup goalkeeper on the US World Cup team in 1990 in Italy That was a few years before MLS was going, he was eventually capped by the US 102 times, but his agent sent enquiries around Europe. He received trial offers from Germany and from a club he‘d never heard of in London. He chose to go to London, because “they spoke English there and my German was primitive at the time.”

He eventually made 202 appearances for that unknown team, Millwall Football Club (1992-1996), and was chosen as their Player of the Year for 1992-93. But this is his relevant quote:

”I picked England because I thought it’d be easier to talk to my teammates. I was wrong. The further north they’d grown up, the less I could understand them.”

 

[Kumquatqueen]

that unknown team, Millwall Football Club, Player of the Year for 1992-93. But this is his relevant quote:
”I picked England because I thought it’d be easier to talk to my teammates. I was wrong. The further north they’d grown up, the less I could understand them.”

Pretty much every international footballer who comes to the UK has a similar quote. Even if they've signed to a southern team with middle-class fans. But especially if they've joined Newcastle (the far north of England, with a dialect more akin to Norse than standard English).

Millwall are known more by reputation than for their footballing prowess - 80s hooliganism has been clamped down on, but let's just say no-one was surprised when three wannabe London Bridge terrorists wielding machetes and knives and trying to kill people were stopped by one guy running at them yelling, "Fuck you! I'm Millwall !!!" and punching their lights out.

Similar vein of spirit to the classic headline quoting the Glasgow baggage handler who stopped a bomber: "I Kicked Terrorist So Hard In The Balls I Broke My Foot!" All the other Glasgow baggage handlers are jealous, especially the ones who had punched the guy but didn't get the headline.

 

[jehoram]

”I picked England because I thought it’d be easier to talk to my teammates. I was wrong. The further north they’d grown up, the less I could understand them.”

I met a guy whose family had come from southern Italy just after WW1, and didn't even speak English until he got to grade school. When he was a GI, stationed in Europe after WW2, he took a holiday and traveled to Italy to see the village where his parents came from. In the north of Italy, he couldn't make himself understood at all, and had to write stuff out. But the farther south he got, the easier it was to be understood and by the time he got to the "ankle" of the boot, he was right at home.

As for English being a lingua Franca, I remember a story about how a German Lufthansa pilot flying from Munich to Berlin asking the tower for clearance. He was speaking German, and the tower told him that he had to make his request in English, the common language of aviation.

He was irate, and said "I'm a German, flying a German airplane from one German city to another German city, where everybody in the tower speaks German! Why should I have to speak English?"

Another pilot in the air, overhearing the exchange, responded, "Because you lost the bloody war!"

 

[SteelPoint]

Sorry but there is a lot of talking around and downright evasion of the simple point of originality.

Possibly it does not sit well with some for them to be reminded that their particular offshoot of the mother language is just that - an offshoot and not the original. Logic, nevertheless, can be harsh to those with hurt feelings.

The fact that "English English" itself has evolved over the centuries is, frankly, neither here not there. It retains, logically, the the sole right to be viewed as the standard.

Whatever English is spoken in England at a given moment in time, in all its accents and variations (and these, yes, are many and glorious), is the only extant form which has any claim to being such.

As Americans would say: "Suck it up"...

 

[Voboy]

The fact that "English English" itself has evolved over the centuries is, frankly, neither here not there. It retains, logically, the the sole right to be viewed as the standard.

…why do you care?

I mean, why is it so important for you to be “right?”

 

[jehoram]

Possibly it does not sit well with some for them to be reminded that their particular offshoot of the mother language is just that - an offshoot and not the original. Logic, nevertheless, can be harsh to those with hurt feelings.

Even a modern Englishman's English is an offshoot of some earlier version. There is no such thing as a "pure" English. Never has been. Even pre-Hastings English was heavily influenced by Norse and Gaelic, resulting in variations that were at times mutually intelligible, although there was seldom a particular geographic line where it could be said that people on each side of it were speaking separate variations. And that was before French, Spanish, Hindi, and God knows what else collided with it.

This has nothing at all to do with hurt feelings. It's linguistics.

The fact that "English English" itself has evolved over the centuries is, frankly, neither here not there. It retains, logically, the the sole right to be viewed as the standard.

Whatever English is spoken in England at a given moment in time, in all its accents and variations (and these, yes, are many and glorious), is the only extant form which has any claim to being such.

Do you see the contradiction in your own statement there? Which form of "English in all its many and glorious accents and variations" is "English English," a standard that comes before all the other many and glorious accents and variations in other countries?

I will grant you that whatever variation that's spoken in England at this time can be considered "English English." And whatever variation that's spoken in the US can be considered "American English." And so on for Canadian, Australian, and so on. But none of them have any claim to be "standard" in the sense that any other variation can be considered inferior or unworthy of serious consideration.

As Americans would say: "Suck it up"...

Shan't!

BTW, there is a very good book just out called "The Dictionary Wars" that documents the struggle between scholars compiling dictionaries on the two sides of the Atlantic, as they tried to come up with some sort of "ideal" English suitable for the two continents. I suggest you read it:

https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691188911/the-dictionary-wars

 

[SteelPoint]

This has nothing at all to do with hurt feelings. It's linguistics.

No, it's a matter of linguistics plus geographical authenticity. To adapt an Americanism and to put it bluntly: it's the name, stupid. England - English. This country - and this country alone - is the cooking pot whence came the stew. It has been through an evolution here, yes, but influenced over the centuries largely by matters and affairs here, not in Connecticut, Calgary, Cape Town or Canberra.

I acknowledge the fact that influences can be reciprocal. Standard (i.e that spoken in England) English has absorbed, in particular, many Americanisms over the past hundred years in particular. This however does not remotely imply that "Standard English" as a term is assignable to any version spoken outside its country of origin.

Once again this point regarding originality is being dismissed as if of no consequence, which is self-evidently ridiculous. The English spoken here is the stem of the plant with its leader still going onwards and upwards, i.e. evolving. All versions spoken elsewhere are the sideshoots with, yes, their own onward development. I have already acknowledged that you can have "Standard American, Australian etc. English" but that's all they will ever be.

 

[Voboy]

No, it's a matter of linguistics plus geographical authenticity. To adapt an Americanism and to put it bluntly: it's the name, stupid. England - English. This country - and this country alone - is the cooking pot whence came the stew. It has been through an evolution here, yes, but influenced over the centuries largely by matters and affairs here, not in Connecticut, Calgary, Cape Town or Canberra.

I acknowledge the fact that influences can be reciprocal. Standard (i.e that spoken in England) English has absorbed, in particular, many Americanisms over the past hundred years in particular. This however does not remotely imply that "Standard English" as a term is assignable to any version spoken outside its country of origin.

Once again this point regarding originality is being dismissed as if of no consequence, which is self-evidently ridiculous. The English spoken here is the stem of the plant with its leader still going onwards and upwards, i.e. evolving. All versions spoken elsewhere are the sideshoots with, yes, their own onward development. I have already acknowledged that you can have "Standard American, Australian etc. English" but that's all they will ever be.

…but… why are you getting so worked up about it?

Do you want a medal for being the country English is named for? Whoopty-do! Here’s your medal.

Surely you’re not trying to win anyone over…

 

[Bramblethorn]

…but… why are you getting so worked up about it?

Do you want a medal for being the country English is named for? Whoopty-do! Here’s your medal.

Funny thing though... if you trace the history of the word "English" back far enough, you end up not in the British Isles but at the Anglia Peninsula in Jutland. Some of the "Angli"/"Angles" who lived there eventually migrated to the British Isles, bringing their name and language with them.

English has done plenty of evolving since then, but its fundamentals still owe a very great deal to what the Angles (and other Germanic peoples) brought with them from the mainland.

If we're playing "origins" and "geographical authenticity", then I guess that means we need to look to the modern-day Danes and Germans to tell us what True English (TM) is ;-)

 

[jehoram]

Funny thing though... if you trace the history of the word "English" back far enough, you end up not in the British Isles but at the Anglia Peninsula in Jutland. Some of the "Angli"/"Angles" who lived there eventually migrated to the British Isles, bringing their name and language with them.

I hadn't thought of that, but you're right. The language now used in England came, in its original form, from northern Germany and what is now Denmark. So "English English" can be considered a bastard form of that pure origin. The fact that these invaders eventually named a foreign country after themselves doesn't change that.

It's a silly discussion, anyway. It's like saying that unless you're from Jamaica, you can't sing reggae. Or if you're from Australia, you can't give a truly authentic performance of an aria from "Otello." Or if you're not from Ireland, keep your goddamn hands off that harp. Music is an even more example of cross-pollenation than language is. Maybe you can trace the blues to Beale Street, or klezmer to Eastern Europe, but neither of those localities would ever claim to be the true custodians of those genres.

 

[SteelPoint]

Funny thing though... if you trace the history of the word "English" back far enough, you end up not in the British Isles but at the Anglia Peninsula in Jutland. Some of the "Angli"/"Angles" who lived there eventually migrated to the British Isles, bringing their name and language with them.

English has done plenty of evolving since then, but its fundamentals still owe a very great deal to what the Angles (and other Germanic peoples) brought with them from the mainland.

If we're playing "origins" and "geographical authenticity", then I guess that means we need to look to the modern-day Danes and Germans to tell us what True English (TM) is ;-)

Or... or... we can actually be sensible and concede nicely that English in the majority evolved within the geographical context of England, that French for the greater part evolved in France, that German evolved in Germany etc.

Yes, most languages owe some or indeed all of their ur-origins to ancient migrations of people and suchlike. This does not negate the logic of ascribing each, quite reasonably, to a commonly-acknowledged and recognisable homeland. Standard Portuguese is spoken in Portugal, as anyone there will rightly tell you, despite the language's recent implantation and subsequent evolution in Brazil where it has massively more speakers. Ditto, the fact that American English has a greater number of adherents both in the U.S. and now throughout the world does not confer upon it any logical basis to be viewed as "the standard".

This cultural imperialism, albeit probably unintentional, which goes with what I see on my screen and the red underline to "recogniSable", is a tacit giveaway that this attitude is the default for many who speak American English... they believe it is the only possible version... just as many of them are all but blind to the existence of the world outside America's shores, its history, geography and culture.

 

[Voboy]

...is a tacit giveaway that this attitude is the default for many who speak American English... they believe it is the only possible version...

What's funny, of course, is that so many posters in this thread are telling you the exact opposite.

You're an amusing poster.

...sorry. "amuzing."

Oh! Wait! That's 'amuzing.'

Isn't it fun that we can use such subtleties to poke fun at each other? I love English. I revel in it. Or I would, anyway, if "revel" didn't come from French.

 

[MetaBob]

I love English. I revel in it. Or I would, anyway, if "revel" didn't come from French.

So did much of the rest of English:

 

[XerXesXu]

Which is absolutely fair enough. The disingenuous points people have been making about the English spoken in other countries are an attempt to claim parity for these "offshoots" - as if in some way they evolved in parallel with that spoken in England rather than, as is obviously the case, branching away from it.

The only "standard English" as such is English English. You can have, I suppose (not "I guess"), "standard US English" or even "standard Nigerian English", if it comes to that - but there is only one original. All others are corruptions of it. Use a different word if you insist but you will not find me saying "A men met these two other min as he stepped out of the drugstore onto the sidewalk" any time soon. Such an "imperialist", I am...

I’m more interested in where English is going than where it’s from.

The concept of a ‘Standard English’ is a melange of grammatical style, spelling, phonemes, received pronunciation, all overlaid on a shared psychological model of reality. The linguistics reside in the psychological model of reality. The more distantly related the languages, the more different the model of reality. Like phonemes, the structural elements of reality must be picked up at an early age. The fewer of these structural elements you share with another language the less you’ll be able to master it completely.

Five hundred years ago, the spoken dialects of English, within England, could be mutually incomprehensible. I couldn’t understand my paternal grandmother’s mother. She was born in 1853 and spoke a Cornish dialect of English. Gran was our interpreter.

Today, when I listen to people from all around the world speaking English, I’m surprised at how fluent they are, and how easy to understand. In the age of mass communication, people are exposed to many geographical varieties of spoken English from an early age and pick up phonemes, grammatical structures and the underlying elements of reality. My guess is that, for young people, English will acquire more of all three, and will become a larger, less prescriptive, yet mutually comprehensible language.