Originally posted by robbie carrobie*Yankees, Nah.
nah, the Yankess tried it to an extent and it became nothing but a bastardisation. Now they just make up their own words. It gives us an air of superiority to remind them that they have not spelt words correctly, a last ditch attempt to remind the world that we once ruled from the sunrise to the sunset. I say keep these peculiarities, its cultural ...[text shortened]... nd its rather, 'rich', to borrow an American phrase (the irony), of them to try to correct us.
Originally posted by EladarColorado's not very far from California. California speech is certainly rather different from the speech of the Deep South, for instance, let alone from British, Australian or New Zealand English.
From my experience Californian dialect is pretty universal. When I went to Colorado I couldn't tell the difference.
Originally posted by PalynkaIt is broken. It makes it harder to teach people to read and write.
Why change it if it's not broken?
We had a spelling agreement recently with Brazil to make it less distinct and most of the silent letters that we use and they don't disappeared. I can't write properly in my own language now and it just looks darn ugly if you ask me.
We already know certain areas have strong accents, there is no need to choose those. It seems to me that there are already spelling differences between UK English and US English.
How do you spell Color? Colour?
Brits can't even say flashlight. Country differences are a given.
Here's Mark Twain's satirical proposal (EDIT: A moment's further googling reveals that this wasn't written by Mark Twain at all; but it's funny nonetheless):
"In Year 1 that useless letter c would be dropped to be replased either by k or s, and likewise x would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which c would be retained would be the ch formation, which will be dealt with later.
Year 2 might reform w spelling, so that which and one would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish y replasing it with i and Iear 4 might fiks the g/j anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.
Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez c, y and x — bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez — tu riplais ch, sh, and th rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld."
Originally posted by EladarNot really. Thanks to the reach and penetration of U.S. brands of popular culture and media, most British people are pretty much fully versed in both U.S. and U.K. vocabulary and slang. On the other hand, in my experience, many U.S. people find a lot of U.K. vocabulary and slang rather baffling. the upshot of this is that many British speakers of English have a broader vocabulary than Americans. Was that one of the "country differences" that you say are "a given"?
Brits can't even say flashlight. Country differences are a given.
Here's another - which will amuse Eurosceptics:
Linguistic Congruence within the European Union
1. Due to its widespread use on the so-called 'Information Superhighway', and so that growing anti-European sentiments in Britain may be reassured about the importance of Britain's role in the European Union, the European Parliament has taken the unprecedented step of selecting one language - English - to become the preferred common language of the European Union.
2. In order to expedite this process and to speed congruence, the European Parliament has commissioned a feasability study of ways in which communications between departments of member governments can be made more effective. Its main recommendations are summarised below.
3. European officials have often pointed out that English spelling is unnecessarily complicated and illogical - for example, the different sounds of cough, plough and rough, or heard and beard. There is a clear need for a phased programme of changes to eliminate these anomalies. The programme would, of course, require administration by a committee whose members would be supplied by participating nations.
4. During the first year of implementation, it is envisaged that the soft "c" will be replaced by the more phonetically correct letter "s". This will sertainly be resieved favourably by sivil servants in many European sities, and will insidentally render the "i" before "e" exsept after "c" rule unnesessary. The logical replasement of the hard "c" by the letter "k" will follow, due to the similarity in pronunsiation. This konkomitant step will, insidentally, not only klear up konfusion in the minds of klerikal workers, but also klarify word prosessing sinse it kompletely removes the need for one of the letters on the keyboard.
5. The sekond stage will see the digraph "ph" written as "f". In addition to the fonetik logik of this move, words such as "fotograf" will be twenty per sent shorter.
6. The third fase will involve the removal of double letters in words. In many instanses, double leters do not afekt the aktual pronunsiation of a word. They are, however, a comon deterent to akurate speling.
7. The fourth element will be the elimination of silent "e"s from the languag. Thes ar often stal reliks of past spelings. They do litl to enhans writen English and it is antisipated that they kould be droped with eas.
8. By this point, the Komision antisipats that publik akseptans of the changes will be at a high level. It wil thus be posibl to promot som other, smaler, but stil posibly kontentious, changes. For exampl, the unesesary "o" kan be droped from words kontaining the "ou" digraf. A similar proses kuld then be aplid to other vowel and konsonant kombinashuns.
9. However, no konseshun wuld yet hav ben mad to Uropean sensibilitis. To tak kar of som of the komon difikultis enkountered by non-nativ spekers, it wuld be sensibl for the "th" digraf to be replased by "z". Ze funkshun of ze "w" kan zen be taken by ze letter "v", vich is, of kors, half a "w" in any kas.
10. Zis proses vil kontinu, in a kumulativ fashun. Eventuli English vil be ze komon languag ov ze Komuniti, vich vil no longer be merly an ekonomik sifer, but a kominashun ov fre pepls. Ve shal kontinu to red and rit as zo nuzing has hapend. Evrivun vil no vot ze uzer sitizens ar saying and komunkashun vil be mutch ezier. Ze Komuniti vil hav achevd its objektivs ov congrewents and ze drems ov ze pepls of Urop vil finali hav kum tru.
Originally posted by FMFEllen vs Hugh Laurie
Not really. Thanks to the reach and penetration of U.S. brands of popular culture and media, most British people are pretty much fully versed in [b]both U.S. and U.K. vocabulary and slang. On the other hand, in my experience, many U.S. people find a lot of U.K. vocabulary and slang rather baffling. the upshot of this is that many British speakers of English ...[text shortened]... bulary than Americans. Was that one of the "country differences" that you say are "a given"?[/b]
Originally posted by AThousandYoungFor U.S. audience, basically? Well it's probably pandering to an American preconception. I've actually done an experiment in the past: written down 100 or so words that might be labelled the 'U.S.' versions, and the 100 corresponding U.K. words.
A short, friendly challenge - American slang vs English slang, and who could guess the meaning of the others' slang.
Broadly speaking the Brits will be familiar with (or even actively use) almost all 200 words; meanwhile Americans will know their own 100 and be unfamiliar or puzzled by many or even most of the 100 U.K. words. American slang is very commonplace for British people.
Can't be bothered looking at a YouTube clip. the whole idea of the challenge of "guess the meaning of the others' slang" being difficult for Brits rings false, but I can see how it would entertain a U.S. audience.
I reckon a similar experiment - with the 200 words - would have the same result in Australia. Americans do not consume a lot of Australian media/culture.
Originally posted by FMFOh come on. We all know about Crocodile Dundee 🙄
For U.S. audience, basically? Well it's probably pandering to an American preconception. I've actually done an experiment in the past: written down 100 or so words that might be labelled the 'U.S.' versions, and the 100 corresponding U.K. words.
Broadly speaking the Brits will be familiar with (or even actively use) almost all 200 words; meanwhile Americans ...[text shortened]... he same result in Australia. Americans do not consume a lot of Australian media/culture.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou're clearly missing the point. Or perhaps you are uncomfortable with it. When someone argues that "many British speakers of English have a broader vocabulary than Americans" does it make you feel a little bit defensive - or something - about your own culture?
Oh come on. We all know about Crocodile Dundee
Originally posted by FMFI have no problem with people in the UK having a broader vocabulary.
You're clearly missing the point. Or perhaps you are uncomfortable with it. When someone argues that "many British speakers of English have a broader vocabulary than Americans" does it make you feel a little bit defensive - or something - about your own culture?
I can see how a large US presence in advertising would help people in the UK understand US slang, just as the internet has helped mine. Now I know that when someone in the UK says he's pissed, it doesn't mean he's angry.