"Americanisms" that Brits hate

Hmmm, maybe you aren't the most qualified person to talk about the intricacies of the English language?

 

On the contrary, he is sufficiently removed from the nationalism inherent in this topic to make a very useful and objective contribution. I have read that all language (including British English) is changed by the ill-educated, so he makes a valid point.

 

Sure, we'll just forget the fact that he doesn't have a strong grasp on spelling, capitalization, or grammar. Other than that he is an expert...

 

This is, by and large, patently false.

First and foremost, the United States had one of the best educated populations in the world around the time of the revolution -- indeed, our literacy rate was higher than France's at the time. To paraphrase Jefferson, America was the only nation who's farmers were well-versed in the works of Cicero.

Further, while the various waves of immigrants certainly had an impact on some aspects of the pronunciation -- not all though; the rhotic R (or, rather, the Shakespearean R ) was retained in the majority of dialects -- they had negligible impact on American English spelling. The deviations from standard British English were the purposeful results of one Noah Webster, not of the Irish, or the Mexicans, or of whoever else, as you propose.

So, in summation, no, the American dialects are not the result of uneducated immigrants fumbling about with English orthography or pronunciation.

 

English is not his first language, and as someone who personally attempts (usually unsuccessfully) to be bilingual, I think he does remarkably well. BTW, how many languages do you speak and write with the facility of a native?

None of which detracts from my point that, as neither a Brit nor an American, his input is likely to be more objective in this matter.

 

That's very admirable that he is able to communicate in a language other than his own. How exactly does that make him the most qualified person to comment on the intricacies of the English language?

You may have had a point if I was simply being a grammar Nazi in a thread about Israel/Palestine relations, for example. This thread, however, is about the English language and it is a reasonable statement that someone who writes English on a very elementary level is not the most qualified person to tell native speakers about the subtler points of the language.

 

I disagree that he writes English at a very elementary level - I have seen worse spelling and more solecisms from native English speaking Americans on this board. However, I did not say that he was the most qualified person to comment upon the subtler points of English language. What I said was that his opinion is likely to be more objective upon the matter than either an American or an Englishman, as he has no national agenda to promote.

 

And? My dog understands English better than my cat yet she isn't qualified to expound on the finer points of the language either.

I implied that he wasn't the most qualified person to talk about the intricacies of the English language and you replied, "On the contrary..." Tell me, does that expression mean something different in the UK than it does in the US?

Yes, I'm sure that the guy named "bennyhill" is completely unbiased in a discussion involving the UK. lol

 

Do the majority of Swiss speak British or American English? The ones I've interacted with sound more like Americans than Brits. Is that the norm?

 

These are some of the funny things some Americaners have said to me or done while I was living in Edinburgh.

"Is the castle there just for the festival?" - Of course, its a KFC the other 11 months.

"Oh my god, why are the Scots not all wear kilts?" - Because it freezing in the winter.

"What does the Haggis Bird look like?" - like a headless chicken, only found on Nessie's head.

"Oh my god, you sound like Billy Connelly!" - good, I'll rather sound like Billy Connelly than a fake Scot like Scotty from Star Trek.

"Why don't all Scots have ginger hair?" - same reason as why all Swedes don't have blond hair. It a stereotype.

"Wow, you have a McDonald's but it doesn't sell burgers!" - yeah well McDonald is a popular surname in Scotland and sorry that shop is older than anything in the US.

One gentleman from one of the Southern States was telling me how he was more Scottish than me, because his name was McPherson, he worn a kilt and can drink whiskey (note Irish spelling). So I said ok. I ordered him a haggis and he eat it until I told him what it was. I then ordered an Irn-bru, and explain how its banned in the USA, he refused to drink it, he would rather have a cola. Then I got him some Bell's whisky, and ask him about his knowledge of Scottish history. He hated the whisky and though William Wallace fought for "FREEDOM" and Robert the Bruce and not King John Balliol - shame Braveheart failed to mention that.

 

Mildly amusing, but I was really commenting upon your lack of manners in criticising his English. I am sure someone as intelligent as you worked that out.

It's a fair cop, guv' - that was badly expressed.

So, a penchant for a long dead, 2nd rate, British comedian makes him a total Anglophile? Should I automatically rise to the defence of everything from the North American continent because I happen to like South Park?

 

I have a proposal for the Brits:

We'll speak your version of English, if you give us The Beatles and Led Zeppelin.

 

Which version of English would that be? There is rather more variation here than in the Colonies, you know.

 

Well I would hope so since there are only about 250,000 people in the British colonies.

 

One gets a bit bored with colonial developments, I must admit. Have we allowed you some sort of colonial self-government now? I hope you make something of it, though I can't say I'm hopeful.

 

Oh, look! A Welshman with Anglo-Saxon aspirations!

As a matter of fact, you're a fair two centuries ignorant. The United States, you see, are fully autonomous -- shame Wales can't say the same.

 

Unfortunately we don't have an Atlantic Ocean between us and England - it made it much easier for them to bring their full military forces against us!

Cue the old crack about 'wanting to tow Wales into the middle of the Atlantic'!

I wouldn't do that at all, of course - it would be much simpler to just tow England out into the North Sea and sink it completely!

ETA - We may not have independance, but we do at least have more history than you!

 

We have lots of history. Iy just doesn't involve Europeans running around in skirts carrying primitive weapons. It involves Native Americans running around in skirts, carrying primitive weapons.

 

Fair comment. They weren't usually so big on building castles and things, though. The odd town carved from a cliff here and there, which is all very interesting, but it's just not the same as having a castle in every town.

 

No, certainly not. Unfortunately, many North American tribes lacked the ability and masonary wherewithal to build anything particularly spectacular -- the best they could come up with were very large mounds of dirt, usually. Central and South America, however, have some truly mind blowing structures (and had many more, before the Spaniards set their picks and torches to them). Machu Picchu is simply extraordinary.

 

I thought you were ruled by the Devil and Mammon. Been a Revolution, has there? Wild stuff!

 

I don't know about the devil, but Mammon is still rather prominent... although either is preferable to an Englishman!

 

Sod off ya' bunch of limey wankers.

 

I believe 'Limey' means English, which I'm not, and I find I can do without childish habits of late. Your point?

 

Oh well now aren't we feeling a bit stroppy today? Well pardon me. I was just taking the Mickey Bliss. Ease up a bit woncha mate? No need to get cheesed off and start slagging everyone and throw a wobbly. All sorted? Okay then, cheery bye!