English (US) native, desperately switching to English (UK) [Archive]

PallElendro

2013-03-07, 12:11 AM

Katana_Geldar

2013-03-07, 12:22 AM

Lets start with aluminium then, pronounced 'al-you-min-ee-um'.

Malak'ai

2013-03-07, 12:24 AM

And don't forget all those pesky extra U's popping up all over the place... Colour, Armour... There are more, just can't think of any right now :smalltongue:

PallElendro

2013-03-07, 12:26 AM

And don't forget all those pesky extra U's popping up all over the place... Colour, Armour... There are more, just can't think of any right now :smalltongue:

Flavour, behaviour.
Then there are z's replaced by s'.
Specialise, initialise, magnetise

Katana_Geldar

2013-03-07, 12:31 AM

Then there's the difference between merry, Mary and marry.

DraPrime

2013-03-07, 12:40 AM

I should point out that British English cannot collectively as a whole be called "more formal". Indeed, the kind of English that you'll hear on the BBC is, but Britain has its own fair share of people who don't pronounce things right and use slang that just breaks the language. American English is its own variant of the language with its own way of doing things, and you shouldn't just throw it out because it's been greatly abused.

It seems to me that attempting to adopt British English as your method of speech would be forced. The fact is that it's not the way of speaking that you've grown up with. You have your own dialect, and this isn't anything actually wrong with American English. The problem is that it isn't being used properly. The fact is that you can use very excellent and articulate English while using the American way of speaking. If you try to speak as if you're British, it'll sound forced, and most likely unintentionally make you look pretentious. Also, do not forget that you will have a clash between your American accent and British pronunciation. For example, if you pronounce aluminum as aluminium, but keep your American accent, then it just won't mix well. If you try to use a British accent, then you've simply become a phony, a fraud. Your use of British spelling will be incorrect so long as you are in the United States because one must defer to the spelling appropriate to the region.

Basically, it's not worth the effort. You have your own form of the English language that you can speak naturally, and it can be used well even if it frequently isn't. Using British English will just come across as fake to both Americans and the British. Just seek out good English in general; it'll be much more effective.

Rawhide

2013-03-07, 12:43 AM

PallElendro

2013-03-07, 01:00 AM

DraPrime

2013-03-07, 01:19 AM

Of course, it's forced. I wouldn't have run to safety from a language that's been abused as much as the Mantis is in Halo 4 if it were not. If you were where I am, Dragonprime, your ears and eyes would become that sticky Japanese rice from all the nonsense in my area. Disorganised clumps with bits and pieces of coherent bonds from whatever is in that stuff. It's no wonder I try to stay away from it. All the screwed-up mess of things is giving me lesions in my brain.

I'm in the same country as you, and in a state as urbanized as your own. I'm well aware of how badly abused the English language can be. As I said, it's an abuse. Why force yourself into what will inevitably be a messed up form of speech and writing, rather than just using the proper form of your own dialect? It's good English, and in this part of the world it is in fact the more correct one. Neither British nor American English are the "right" version. They're just two different dialects, each appropriate to its own territory and people. You've hit the age where you can no longer easily alter the way you speak. You will probably end up speaking a deficient form of British English, more of a hybrid dialect than the real thing. My point is that if you just stick with speaking really good American English you will actually speak better English than if you tried to speak like the British do. It's a much more efficient and effective path for you.

Katana_Geldar

2013-03-07, 01:23 AM

Pshaw, if you knew anything about English you'd also know its been used and abused since day dot due to all the people conquering England.

DraPrime

2013-03-07, 01:28 AM

Pshaw, if you knew anything about English you'd also know its been used and abused since day dot due to all the people conquering England.

Indeed. English is one freaky mutant hybrid of a language.

Coidzor

2013-03-07, 01:50 AM

Then there's the difference between merry, Mary and marry.

He was merry ere he married Mary, no?

Indeed. English is one freaky mutant hybrid of a language.

Skulks around in dark alleyways looking for other languages to cost and rifle through the pockets of in search of spare verbiage and doesn't afraid of anything.

DraPrime

2013-03-07, 01:54 AM

Skulks around in dark alleyways looking for other languages to cost and rifle through the pockets of in search of spare verbiage and doesn't afraid of anything.

So it does amigo. So it does. :smallamused:

Dumbledore lives

2013-03-07, 01:55 AM

There are a few strange spellings that I could never get used to like cheque or judgement. The rest, especially the z's and s's are fine, though switching to British English just because people are bad about using the American dialect doesn't make any sense. I've never been to Britain but all my New Zealand friends are just as bad if not worse about abusing the language, acronyms and bad spelling are universal.

Elemental

2013-03-07, 02:06 AM

Let's not forget about humour and humorous. Yes, you drop the u for humorous.

I much prefer British English in almost all cases, but there are some cases where I prefer the American versions.

e.g.
analogue -> analog
gaol -> jail
programme -> program

I prefer the British in almost all cases personally. Even gaol.
But programme is something I almost always spell program. Perhaps times truly are changing?

Brother Oni

2013-03-07, 02:49 AM

Pshaw, if you knew anything about English you'd also know its been used and abused since day dot due to all the people conquering England.

Point of order - we were last conquered in 1066.

English is abused because of all the conquering we did. To the victor, goes the spoils, even if it's just spare words and loose grammar. :smalltongue:

But programme is something I almost always spell program. Perhaps times truly are changing?

I was under the impression that it was a computer program, but a TV or events programme.
This may be an age thing though as some of us remember a time before computers were ubiquitous.

Rawhide

2013-03-07, 02:56 AM

I prefer the British in almost all cases personally. Even gaol.
But programme is something I almost always spell program. Perhaps times truly are changing?

Ugh. I absolutely hate gaol.

Analogue to analog is just a minor preference, but I much prefer program over programme, and absolutely prefer jail over gaol. Gaol doesn't even look right in any sense of the word.

Coidzor

2013-03-07, 03:02 AM

Until today I honestly thought gaol was Middle English.

Ceric

2013-03-07, 03:03 AM

factotum

2013-03-07, 03:03 AM

Ugh. I absolutely hate gaol.

I live in the UK and I have *never* seen "gaol" used unless the writer is either being deliberately archaic or is 93... :smallwink:

Heliomance

2013-03-07, 03:22 AM

Let's not forget about humour and humorous. Yes, you drop the u for humorous.

I much prefer British English in almost all cases, but there are some cases where I prefer the American versions.

e.g.
analogue -> analog
gaol -> jail
programme -> program

Analogue looks far prettier though. As for the others, gaol is deprecated - we all use jail (or more commonly, prison) these days, and programme and program are two slightly different words. As mentioned above, you have a television programme, or a programme of events, but you program a computer with a program.

Don Julio Anejo

2013-03-07, 03:24 AM

At least your parents text :smalltongue: My dad flat out refuses to get a cell phone ("so my boss can't bother me") which means his boss just calls his housephone, or mom, so the whole "not bothering" bothers an extra person. And my mom refuses to do much more than dial phone numbers she's memorized. She doesn't even use the numbers in the address book I add in. They're both in their late 40's, in case you're wondering.

I also want to point out that even American English has at least two more distinct dialects: Southern and Urban (officially known as Ebonics.. and unofficially as Blackanese). Then there's regional accents. And "posh New England" isn't even the default, when people think of an American accent, they usually think West Coast/Hollywood. England? Even more of a mess. You go to a different neighbourhood in London and people have trouble understanding you.

BBC aka Queen's English is pretty much an accent only seen on TV or with diplomats and the like. Unless you're a newscaster, a diplomat or a foreigner who learned this version, you'll sound like you're trying too hard/want to show off.

Skulks around in dark alleyways looking for other languages to cost and rifle through the pockets of in search of spare verbiage and doesn't afraid of anything.
Eh sounds like a pretty cool language.

Rawhide

2013-03-07, 04:01 AM

programme and program are two slightly different words. As mentioned above, you have a television programme, or a programme of events, but you program a computer with a program.

Nope, program is usable in all instances that programme is. The reverse isn't exactly true, given that computing originated in the United States, but program is a complete replacement for programme.

You have a television program, a program of events, and you program a computer program. This was best parodied by The Micallef P(r)ogram(me) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Micallef_P(r)ogram(me)#Name_changes).

Exeson

2013-03-07, 04:12 AM

Please by all means go live in London for a bit and you can tell me if British English is in any way different to the apparent problem you have with American English.

I'd just like to throw my hat in with the whole trying to force British English as an American would look very pretentious. I'd also guess, though, that seeing as you deem the language you speak as not good enough for you then that wouldn't be a problem as such.

I'm telling you now, formal British English (Queens English or RP) is pretty widely regarded as 'posh' and 'snobbish'.

KuReshtin

2013-03-07, 04:49 AM

Please by all means go live in London for a bit and you can tell me if British English is in any way different to the apparent problem you have with American English.

Just find an episode of 'The Phone Shop' online and listen to the way they talk. :smallwink:

The Succubus

2013-03-07, 05:01 AM

Let's not forget about humour and humorous. Yes, you drop the u for humorous.

I much prefer British English in almost all cases, but there are some cases where I prefer the American versions.

e.g.
analogue -> analog
gaol -> jail
programme -> program

Program and programme are seen as two different things. A "program" is something you use a computer for, a programme is an outline of a day's events.

EDIT: Ninja'd by a Trilby-wearing ninja.

Rawhide

2013-03-07, 05:09 AM

Program and programme are seen as two different things. A "program" is something you use a computer for, a programme is an outline of a day's events.

EDIT: Ninja'd by a Trilby-wearing ninja.

Nope. In US English, program is used exclusively.

And you were somehow ninja'd by almost two hours (I'm assuming you meant Heliomance, as I'm wearing a straw boater, otherwise that would be one hour). I'm aware of it's different use in British English.

mucco

2013-03-07, 05:16 AM

I suppose it's a minor thing for everyone, but as a result of English (US) downgrading to becoming 0.7 of a language, I've switched to the only English close to California. British English.
I swear, no one around me seems to grasp the most formal way to type. Hell, even my mother can't spell "you" right! It always has to be "u," or "brb" to say "be right back," and what other euphemisms she got used to.

:sigh: It's probably the SMS' fault. Their evil ways of messaging via phone. There's are things called vocals, but they seem to be reserved for uttering sexist insults around my zone.

That's why the stereotype of formal, British English has been brought to my attention. It suits me. It's the sort of language I would use, being full of new letters I could use for extra points in Scrabble, and to give myself a superiority complex over my weak-minded co-workers in my high school.

SMS language mutilation exists in all languages ("Je t'M" comes to mind). Moreover, most languages can be considered equal for communication power so it's not like UK English will make you better at communicating. Not to mention that UK and US English are the same language with a slightly varied way of writing a minority of the words. And the fact that UK English is not any more formal than its counterpart.

You want a superiority complex, learn your mother tongue well. That will be sufficient to put you a notch above 95% of the population. Speaking with a forced UK accent just makes you look silly. I know I'm not a native English speaker and I know and can use the language better than many natives... Gives me such a huge ego boost! :smallbiggrin:

Malak'ai

2013-03-07, 05:16 AM

Let's not forget about humour and humorous. Yes, you drop the u for humorous.

I much prefer British English in almost all cases, but there are some cases where I prefer the American versions.

e.g.
analogue -> analog
gaol -> jail
programme -> program

Never used the word "goal" in my life, apart from talking about soccer (it will always be soccer to me, no matter what anyone says).

There are a few strange spellings that I could never get used to like cheque or judgement. The rest, especially the z's and s's are fine, though switching to British English just because people are bad about using the American dialect doesn't make any sense. I've never been to Britain but all my New Zealand friends are just as bad if not worse about abusing the language, acronyms and bad spelling are universal.

Yeah, Kiwi slang is difficult sometimes, and yes, there is a large population here in NZ that just don't know how to spell/talk correctly... Hell, even in our University entrance exams you're allowed to use "Txt speak" (Sms shorthand to the most of the rest of the world) so it's no wonder we butcher the poor language. Though nowhere near as badly as the Auzzie's I know!

Program and programme are seen as two different things. A "program" is something you use a computer for, a programme is an outline of a day's events.

EDIT: Ninja'd by a Trilby-wearing ninja.

Programme is also used when referring to a television or radio broadcast.

Rawhide

2013-03-07, 05:18 AM

Never used the word "goal" in my life, apart from talking about soccer (it will always be soccer to me, no matter what anyone says).

That would be gaol (jail), not goal (scoring).

Malak'ai

2013-03-07, 05:21 AM

That would be gaol (jail), not goal (scoring).

Whoops... That was just purely a type-o.
Still pronounced the same, so statement still stands.

Rawhide

2013-03-07, 05:25 AM

Whoops... That was just purely a type-o.
Still pronounced the same, so statement still stands.

Actually, no. Gaol (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gaol) is pronounced the same as jail (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jail), while goal (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/goal) is pronounced differently. (You can simply view the pronunciation guide, or click the speaker on each to hear it.)

The Succubus

2013-03-07, 05:28 AM

I pronounce them rather differently - "goal" I pronounce as "gol" whereas "gaol" I pronounce as "gay-l", similar to jail. It's a very old fashioned word for jail and you'll almost never hear it in modern usage.

EDIT: Now I've been ninja'd by a straw-boater wearing ninja. :smalltongue:

Malak'ai

2013-03-07, 05:30 AM

Actually, no. Gaol (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gaol) is pronounced the same as jail (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jail), while goal (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/goal) is pronounced differently. (You can simply view the pronunciation guide, or click the speaker on each to hear it.

Well I can honestly say I have never heard it said like that.
Even my fathers best friend (an ex-English teacher from England) pronounced it "goal" when I asked him when I ran across it in a book. Weird :smalleek:.

EDIT: Just goes to show you can't always trust native speakers of any language (or teachers :smalltongue:).

Heliomance

2013-03-07, 05:35 AM

Nope. In US English, program is used exclusively.

And you were somehow ninja'd by almost two hours (I'm assuming you meant Heliomance, as I'm wearing a straw boater, otherwise that would be one hour). I'm aware of it's different use in British English.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/35821935.jpg

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist :P

factotum

2013-03-07, 07:23 AM

Even my fathers best friend (an ex-English teacher from England) pronounced it "goal" when I asked him when I ran across it in a book.

It's possible he didn't read the context the word appeared in and thus misread it as the far more common word "goal" than what it actually was.

Rawhide

2013-03-07, 08:26 AM

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/35821935.jpg

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist :P

Meh. Simple typo. I'm well aware of the differences. Its been a long day. chuckle

Malak'ai

2013-03-07, 08:31 AM

It's possible he didn't read the context the word appeared in and thus misread it as the far more common word "goal" than what it actually was.

Most likely... Well, learn something new everyday.

Gravitron5000

2013-03-07, 09:14 AM

Skulks around in dark alleyways looking for other languages to acccost and rifle through the pockets of in search of spare verbiage and isn't afraid of anything.

If this wasn't a thread about the abuse of the English language, I would have happily let this slide ... :smallbiggrin:

Castaras

2013-03-07, 09:16 AM

We don't use Gaol, and as has been said in Britain Program and Programme are two different things.

English is a bastardised language that beats up other languages to steal things. And we have text speakers as well. It's useful when you're running out of characters in a message (especially if it costs more to make a 400 character message over a 200 one), and has been in use for a very long time. Telegrams used it a lot because of cost.

If you want to speak British English go right ahead. Sounds like you'll be happier that way. But the problems you're detailing which are pushing you to switch are definitely not American only. Thinking of Scouse, Geordi, Cockney and all accents in between. Sounds like you've only heard BBC English, which is the standardised accent and pronunciation that is used by news people. It's also the pronunciation I was raised up on, no idea if I still speak it though... "Mispronunciation" is the spice of language and dialects are fun things to listen to.

Rawhide

2013-03-07, 09:24 AM

as has been said in Britain Program and Programme are two different things.

As has also been said, the only reason they are used for two different things is because the US changed programme to program. Then, when computers came about, they spelt it program, and that filtered back. Thus, the Americans have already won. :smalltongue:

Eldan

2013-03-07, 09:24 AM

Let's not forget about humour and humorous. Yes, you drop the u for humorous.

I much prefer British English in almost all cases, but there are some cases where I prefer the American versions.

e.g.
analogue -> analog
gaol -> jail
programme -> program

I just have a weird mixture. I mean, we learned some basic British English in school. Then I went to Australia to actually learn it properly. All while teaching myself from American media.

Jail just makes more sense. But I refuse to drop my extra "u"s in honour.

That said, with the exception of those extra "u"s which just seem pretty to me, my personal tendency is to drop as many silent letters as possible and try to spell things in the way that is closest to how they sound. With my own personal preferences as to how a letter is pronounced "logically" of course.

But then, I'm not a native.

lesser_minion

2013-03-07, 09:45 AM

You don't need to worry about 'rationalize' vs. 'rationalise' -- it's a matter of style, and both suffixes are valid (contrary to popular belief, it's en-US that's standardised and formalised to all hell and back -- en-GB just goes with the flow). However, 'analyze', 'hydrolyze' and so on are wrong.

'Programme' and 'program' are both valid en-GB, but they're different words with different meanings. en-US is welcome to use the same spelling for both, but they aren't in any way more correct in doing so.

As for whether or not the idea of a computer program came from the US, Ada Lovelace and Charles Babbage say 'hi'. And the British Royal Navy was the first organisation in history to get screwed by buying their IT from the lowest bidder, at the Battle of Jutland in 1916.

Thufir

2013-03-07, 09:53 AM

If this wasn't a thread about the abuse of the English language, I would have happily let this slide ... :smallbiggrin:

"Doesn't afraid of anything" is an internet meme rather than a grammatical error in this context. 'Accost' was indeed, I believe, the word he was looking for, but it only has two Cs, not three. I'm afraid you have fallen victim to Muphry's Law.

Androgeus

2013-03-07, 10:04 AM

Flavour, behaviour.
Then there are z's replaced by s'.
Specialise, initialise, magnetise

-ize is totally fine in British English, it is only frowned upon because of the higher popularity in America makes people think it is an Americanism.

Rawhide

2013-03-07, 10:09 AM

'Programme' and 'program' are both valid en-GB, but they're different words with different meanings. en-US is welcome to use the same spelling for both, but they aren't in any way more correct in doing so.

The point isn't and has never been about who's more correct. The first point was that I feel that the spelling of programme is terrible in this day and age and that I much prefer the spelling of program (this is obviously a matter of opinion that I was expressing, a personal preference). The second was that in American English, the spelling of program is used in all contexts. That is how I use it, despite preferring British English for most other words.

The third point is that there is no difference between programme and program, they can be used interchangeably, in all contexts except for the computer program - which is because the British incorporated the American spelling back after the computer revolution in the US.

shawnhcorey

2013-03-07, 10:10 AM

He was merry ere he married Mary, no?

Just don't talk about lay and lie. :smallfrown:

And if you just want to be different, use Anglish (http://anglish.wikia.com/wiki/Headside).

Eldan

2013-03-07, 10:17 AM

Ooh, Anglish. It's interesting how much of it you can understand if you speak both German and English.

kurokotetsu

2013-03-07, 10:43 AM

Take it from me, don't. I went to a bi-cultural school, so half of my classes were in English (half in Spanish). The problem is that teachers were all from different places (form Britain, to Australia to even Luxembourg) and all had different spellings, accents and lexicon. What happens if you have one form of English and add another is that some words remain the same from overuse and habit, while you replace random ones with the new spellings or words, ending up in a jumble of styles that is very unsightly and sounds like you are not used to the language, even if you've been speaking it for years. Unless you do a very thorough "purification" off all your habits, both in writing and speaking, it is not worth it, just use your normal English correctly and it is more than enough. It will still sound a little pedantic (most people do make mistakes in the way they speak, so a accurate use of the language will still make you "unique") but it is easier and has less probability of errors.

(This happens to me both with English and Spanish, so i now what ends up happening).

Also, English is abused, but more or less the same amount as any other language used over a large area.

snoopy13a

2013-03-07, 11:21 AM

Just don't use "whilst" or "amongst."

Eldan

2013-03-07, 11:26 AM

Why not? :smallconfused:

Grm. Anglish. I would have slightly better things to do than spend an hour reading about the Band of Workermootly Kithish Commonwealths or Tungolcraft.

snoopy13a

2013-03-07, 11:36 AM

Why not? :smallconfused:

Grm. Anglish. I would have slightly better things to do than spend an hour reading about the Band of Workermootly Kithish Commonwealths or Tungolcraft.

Neither word is commonly used in America; typically, "while" and "among" are used instead. An American using "whilst" appears pretentious.

As a side note, I hate "spot-on." It has, rather unfortunately, wormed its way into American English.

Eldan

2013-03-07, 11:37 AM

Ah, Americans shouldn't use them. I thought they shouldn't be used in general. Another difference in idiom I wasn't aware of.

Rawhide

2013-03-07, 11:37 AM

Just don't use "whilst" or "amongst."

Whilst that might be good advice, you are amongst people who would. Actually, I use amongst a fair bit...

Eldan

2013-03-07, 11:42 AM

Jolly good, I dig your style, mate.

(I, on the other hand, love mixing idioms to see people cringe :smalltongue:)

snoopy13a

2013-03-07, 12:20 PM

Ah, Americans shouldn't use them. I thought they shouldn't be used in general. Another difference in idiom I wasn't aware of.

It is more of a matter of style than idiom. Using "whilst" is grammatically correct in American English, and it has the same meaning as it does in British English. Rather, "whilst" simply went out of use in America. Conversely, it never went out of use in Britian. So, in America, "whilst" is archaic--somewhat akin to "shall."

Since "whilst" is archaic in American English, using it signals a British affection in one's writing. While this is obviously expected in a British writer (or one who was taught British English), it is unexpected in an American writer. Personally, I cringe whenever I see an American writer use it.

Adlan

2013-03-07, 12:23 PM

If you want to sound like you think Englishmen sound, I would advise lots and lots of audiobooks read by stephen fry, and anything written by P.G. Woodhouse.

To Complete this hypno-indoctrination, watching Jeeves and Wooster (and yes, Bertie is House before he was House) should also do the trick.

There's also a new BBC series called Blandings, I throughly rate.

Also, some BBC Radio Announcers still use the dulcet tones of RP. It's quite fun for me to hear the undercurrent of their native accent, and as I have also suppressed my own for more RP sounds.

I'd love to hear your attempts, American accented RP would be very interesting, but I'm actually a proud Dialect speaker, though it's not my everyday voice, I'd caution you against cutting all roots to the language of your youth.

At in't like ewe get more'n one go round. At could be a lot of troshin' for nuffin' if you start speaking a load of ol' squit.

lesser_minion

2013-03-07, 12:36 PM

Eldan

2013-03-07, 12:38 PM

No idea. I guess its just that no one has ever told me not to use it. And I read a lot of old-ish books.

Gravitron5000

2013-03-07, 12:43 PM

"Doesn't afraid of anything" is an internet meme rather than a grammatical error in this context. 'Accost' was indeed, I believe, the word he was looking for, but it only has two Cs, not three. I'm afraid you have fallen victim to Muphry's Law.

Alas! I have once again fallen victim to poetic justice! Woe is me!

Also, I was not aware of that meme. It seems that I need to do some research on the matter. TO THE INTERNET!!!

snoopy13a

2013-03-07, 12:54 PM

I'm not aware of 'whilst' nor 'amongst' being regarded as anything but hopelessly archaic any time since the 40s. Where are you getting the idea that they're commonly used in British English?

As for Americanisms that need to die in a fire, 'cooperate'. Please substitute either 'co-operate' or 'coöperate', unless you actually want to pronounce the word as if it rhymes with 'recuperate'.

I wish people saw them as hopelessly archaic :smallsmile: . The "renaissance" of "whilst" had to start somewhere, right?

Yeah, Americans hate hypens. We tend to eliminate them whenever possible. Our current target is "e-mail," which is currently changing to "email."

lesser_minion

2013-03-07, 01:12 PM

Yeah, Americans hate hypens. We tend to eliminate them whenever possible. Our current target is "e-mail," which is currently changing to "email."

The purpose of the hyphen or diaeresis in 'co-operate' is to show how it's pronounced. 'Cooperate' is lazy and misleading. With 'email', the hyphen isn't needed to signal anything.

Also, for reference, 'shall' is not archaic. You're supposed to use 'shall' for emphasis, or to denote an obligation, whereas 'will' denotes intent. You can usually get away with 'will', but you shouldn't just completely ignore 'shall' if your prose isn't meant to be boring.

Brother Oni

2013-03-07, 01:30 PM

As for the others, gaol is deprecated - we all use jail (or more commonly, prison) these days, and programme and program are two slightly different words.

Actually in US English, a jail and a prison are two separate things.

In the United States, "jail" and "prison" refer to separate levels of incarceration; generally speaking, jails are county or city administrated institutions which house both inmates awaiting trial on the local level and convicted misdemeanants serving a term of one year or less, while prisons are state or federal facilities housing convicted felons serving a term of more than one year.

Thus interestingly, saying 'jails are full of innocent men' is technically correct as generally, people incarcerated in a jail haven't been convicted (yet), while people in prison have been.

Heliomance

2013-03-07, 01:54 PM

snoopy13a

2013-03-07, 02:01 PM

The purpose of the hyphen or diaeresis in 'co-operate' is to show how it's pronounced. 'Cooperate' is lazy and misleading. With 'email', the hyphen isn't needed to signal anything.

Also, for reference, 'shall' is not archaic. You're supposed to use 'shall' for emphasis, or to denote an obligation, whereas 'will' denotes intent. You can usually get away with 'will', but you shouldn't just completely ignore 'shall' if your prose isn't meant to be boring.

"Email" and "cooperate" suffer from the same ambiguity in pronouncation (although I didn't notice at the time, I just mentioned email as a word that was losing its hypen). The "em" in "email" is not pronounced the same as the "em" in "Emily" or "emory."

As for "shall," "must" works well most of the time. Especially since many readers are ignorant of "shall's" gravity.

lesser_minion

2013-03-07, 03:24 PM

As for "shall," "must" works well most of the time. Especially since many readers are ignorant of "shall's" gravity.

I'm pretty sure those readers deserve to be beaten over the head with a stage actor, to be honest.

But yes, you're right, 'email' is ambiguous as well.

Goosefeather

2013-03-07, 03:43 PM

"Email" and "cooperate" suffer from the same ambiguity in pronouncation (although I didn't notice at the time, I just mentioned email as a word that was losing its hypen). The "em" in "email" is not pronounced the same as the "em" in "Emily" or "emory."

As for "shall," "must" works well most of the time. Especially since many readers are ignorant of "shall's" gravity.

It is, however, pronounced like the 'em' in 'emu' :smalltongue:

To be honest, English pronunciation is already unintuitive enough that email and cooperate really don't bother me. Not when you still have spellings like 'knight' and 'thorough' kicking around, anyway.

Of course, the weirdest US-UK difference is that apparently in the US the word 'philosopher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher's_Stone)' is spelt 's-o-r-c-e-r-e-r'... :smallsigh:

lesser_minion

2013-03-07, 03:52 PM

Yeah, that's one that you probably don't want to get me started on.

SaintRidley

2013-03-07, 04:01 PM

Ne spricest Englisc. Spricest an doctungan – Englisc ne borgaþ word; Englisc bist lutende hore on arrende to smacan oþer tungan and smittian hirsylfre mid hiera word. Ic recee frencisca fagnessa, lædenisce sceabbas, gresisca blegena, and wunda of eallre þære worulde.

If you want to flee to an original form of the language, there it is. Have at.

Adlan

2013-03-07, 04:28 PM

My mother was very particular about the Difference between may, will, shall and can.

You can do things you may not do, and what you shall do is not necessarily what you will do.

Malak'ai

2013-03-07, 06:39 PM

My mother was very particular about the Difference between may, will, shall and can.

You can do things you may not do, and what you shall do is not necessarily what you will do.

My Nana used to say something similar, can't remember how it went exactly. Only thing is, she used to say it when telling us kids off (and then we didn't get any of the biscuits (cookies) she had just made :smallfrown:)

Coidzor

2013-03-08, 12:09 AM

Whilst that might be good advice, you are amongst people who would. Actually, I use amongst a fair bit...

Whilst gets more of a pass as a deliberate affection for effect or emphasis than amongst does in my experience. Only rare occasions seem like it'd be appropriate to bring it up without getting into "Ye olde" mode.

Grindle

2013-03-08, 12:23 AM

This whole thread topic seems mildly trollish. (U.S. English is terrible! Kids these days and their slang!)

Edit: On another note, see Act One of this radio show episode (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/155/hoaxing-yourself) for a story about someone adopting a British accent in high school. (transcript here (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/155/transcript))

Rawhide

2013-03-08, 01:31 AM

Whilst gets more of a pass as a deliberate affection for effect or emphasis than amongst does in my experience. Only rare occasions seem like it'd be appropriate to bring it up without getting into "Ye olde" mode.

"Look what I found amongst the bushes."

SaintRidley

2013-03-08, 01:39 AM

"Look what I found amongst the bushes."

I can see that one, but it makes me picture a bunch of bushes and then [what you found] kind of in the open in the same general vicinity as the bushes. Which, if that's what you meant, conveys it perfectly.

If it was actually found nestled in bushy matter, I'd say "Look what I found in the bushes."

Then again, if we were speaking Old English we'd just say on, and on would encompass both senses. Prepositions are fun.

Rawhide

2013-03-08, 09:21 AM

I can see that one, but it makes me picture a bunch of bushes and then [what you found] kind of in the open in the same general vicinity as the bushes. Which, if that's what you meant, conveys it perfectly.

If it was actually found nestled in bushy matter, I'd say "Look what I found in the bushes."

Then again, if we were speaking Old English we'd just say on, and on would encompass both senses. Prepositions are fun.

There's a whole bunch of bushes, usually quite close together, and somewhere amongst them was the object in question. It might be under one, it might be between them, or it might be under several if they are overlapping. It was somewhere where the bushes are.

You could also say: Look what I found amongst the toys.

Goosefeather

2013-03-08, 11:30 AM

Heliomance

2013-03-08, 12:12 PM

Betwixt is quite a fun one.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

2013-03-08, 12:23 PM

--Lime--

2013-03-08, 12:36 PM

"Shall" is still valid in the UK, but it is going out of date. I would only use it to really emphasise intention (e.g. "I've had several vodkas, and that's why dinner's late, but I shall now go and cook" - also, for emphasis, look at that position of the adverb "now")

However, while is not the same as whilst. "Whilst" implies a negative, almost as if adding "however" after the clause:
"Whilst you are allowed into the drawing-room, please do not touch the antique guns above the fireplace while Sir Digsbury is away."
alternatively: "You are allowed into the drawing-room; however, do not touch..."
The difference between the two is being eroded, though, even in the UK.

----------------

If you are anywhere except the USA, the Metric system uses the "metre". It was invented by the French, and that's how they want to spell it. Same with "litre".
If you are in the USA, it's "meter" and "liter", because your government tells you so, in an official capacity.

If you are in the UK, I am very sorry to inform you that the IUPAC want you to change "sulphur" to "sulfer". If you are in the USA, they said the same thing about you changing "aluminum" to "aluminium", but you just refused to play nicely with the other kids, and they accepted "aluminum" as a variant three years down the line.

----------------------

Language is a personal thing. Do I hyphenate "no-one"? Or go with "no one"? Is it "Mr. X" or "Mr X"? USA or U.S.A? Bear in mind that sixty years ago, "alright" wasn't a real word - it was the equivalent of using "ur" for "your" today, for example. Technically, they would prefer "all right".

Of course, if we're going back sixty years, we're going to have to have words about ending clauses with prepositions, and I don't think anyone's clamouring for a return to that.

-------------

Fun words to argue about with British and Americans alike!

Moustache
Manoeuvre
Calibre

SaintRidley

2013-03-08, 06:13 PM

Oh man, the elitism in this thread is RIDICULOUS.

But if you REALLY want to go back to the original form of a language, ṇdha spekjō nē ólteros, kei wetwos dṇghwā en dhoubnom, ájeri Proto-Indo-European!

Why stop there? We can surely push back to before languages differentiated. Contrary to what you wrote, Proto-Indo-European isn't the oldest language in the world.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

2013-03-08, 08:13 PM

Why stop there? We can surely push back to before languages differentiated. Contrary to what you wrote, Proto-Indo-European isn't the oldest language in the world.

Ah, but it's the oldest that has been reconstructed to ANY meaningful level of depth. PIE is the furthest back we can trace English with any certainty at all. All connections between PIE and any other language groups are INCREDIBLY tentative, theoretical, and not in any way widely accepted. The most widely accepted one is a link with the Finno-Ugric family, but even that one is only INCREDIBLY tentative.

Rawhide

2013-03-08, 08:26 PM

Of course, if we're going back sixty years, we're going to have to have words about ending clauses with prepositions, and I don't think anyone's clamouring for a return to that.

Not ending sentences with prepositions was never correct though. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/video/0025-preposition.htm)

SaintRidley

2013-03-08, 11:31 PM

Ah, but it's the oldest that has been reconstructed to ANY meaningful level of depth. PIE is the furthest back we can trace English with any certainty at all. All connections between PIE and any other language groups are INCREDIBLY tentative, theoretical, and not in any way widely accepted. The most widely accepted one is a link with the Finno-Ugric family, but even that one is only INCREDIBLY tentative.

True enough.

But why should we let that stop the OP?

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

2013-03-08, 11:36 PM

True enough.

But why should we let that stop the OP?

Aaaaahhhh, now we're speakin' the same language!

...

Ok I totally didn't intend that but now that I thought it up I have to write it down.

Y'know, at some point language must have been semi-random noises (other than bubba-kiki effect type things) and pointing at objects, yes? that'll go down well in high school! I mean, that's the most basic form of verbal communication I can imagine, other than the usual "loud noises mean RUN" and other animalistic noises.

PallElendro

2013-03-09, 12:18 AM

True enough.

But why should we let that stop the OP?

It won't. I will never be stopped.

I nearly got struck by a softball at school today. I yelled "Crikey!"

Worira

2013-03-09, 12:29 AM

That's not even the right wrong continent.

PallElendro

2013-03-09, 12:34 AM

That's not even the right wrong continent.

Isn't it? Not only did I switch to English (UK), I used English (AU) once!

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

2013-03-09, 12:40 AM

English (CAN) is clearly superior, but is almost never supported :smallfrown:
We have our own unique spellings too, you know!
:smallbiggrin:

SaintRidley

2013-03-09, 01:39 AM

My actual speech is a weird mix of English (US), English (UK), English (A-S), and the occasional bit of English (AU) and Castellano.

Coidzor

2013-03-09, 01:48 AM

My actual speech is a weird mix of English (US), English (UK), English (A-S), and the occasional bit of English (AU) and Castellano.

Which one is A-S?

SaintRidley

2013-03-09, 02:08 AM

Which one is A-S?

Anglo-Saxon. I have a certain fondness for using some of the words which have been displaced over the past thousand years.

lesser_minion

2013-03-09, 07:03 AM

Not ending sentences with prepositions was never correct though. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/video/0025-preposition.htm)

Indeed. Ending a sentence with an unnecessary preposition is wrong, and always has been wrong -- "where is he going to?" for example. But if the preposition is actually needed, it doesn't matter if it ends a sentence.

noparlpf

2013-03-09, 10:50 AM

I suppose it's a minor thing for everyone, but as a result of English (US) downgrading to becoming 0.7 of a language, I've switched to the only English close to California. British English.
I swear, no one around me seems to grasp the most formal way to type. Hell, even my mother can't spell "you" right! It always has to be "u," or "brb" to say "be right back," and what other euphemisms she got used to.

:sigh: It's probably the SMS' fault. Their evil ways of messaging via phone. There's are things called vocals, but they seem to be reserved for uttering sexist insults around my zone.

That's why the stereotype of formal, British English has been brought to my attention. It suits me. It's the sort of language I would use, being full of new letters I could use for extra points in Scrabble, and to give myself a superiority complex over my weak-minded co-workers in my high school.

Where did you hear that? I'd like a source.
If you're concerned about how people spell, just spell things properly yourself. Also, British English as a whole isn't more formal, unless you're speaking proper British English, in which case, just speak proper American English instead of slang and you're set anyway.
Anyway:
'-or' words become '-our' (e.g. colour, honour, behaviour)
'-ize' words become '-ise' (e.g. rationalise, randomise)
'Defense' becomes 'defence', and likewise for similar words.
There are some others occasionally. I can't think of any off the top of my head right now. If I wrote one I might know it.
English measurements are transformed to metric. Well, that should happen regardless of what language you're speaking.
'I' becomes 'I am a hipster', because you're intentionally changing how you write to be less mainstream in your area.
On the other hand, the American pronunciations are more "correct"; the English accent started later. So maybe you don't want to say "maths" or "schedule". (Thanks to British P-Chem prof. and British television, I now say 'shedual'. It's awful.)

Edit: Oh yeah, 'analog' becomes 'analogue', which it should be anyway, seeing as how we still spell 'dialogue' with the '-ue', usually. Or do we? I don't know, my spelling is a horrible bastardised mess of British and American English. I once wrote "behavior" and "behaviour" in the same sentence on a Bio exam.

Rawhide

2013-03-09, 01:15 PM

Indeed. Ending a sentence with an unnecessary preposition is wrong, and always has been wrong -- "where is he going to?" for example. But if the preposition is actually needed, it doesn't matter if it ends a sentence.

I dispute your example, I find that perfectly fine.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

2013-03-09, 01:33 PM

Seems fine to me. I mean, not in a formal voice or style, but in an informal style, "Wherez'ee goin' tuu" is just fine.

Coidzor

2013-03-09, 01:46 PM

Anglo-Saxon. I have a certain fondness for using some of the words which have been displaced over the past thousand years.

So... Old English or whatever preceded Old English? Kinky.

noparlpf

2013-03-09, 07:04 PM

I dispute your example, I find that perfectly fine.

My mum's an English teacher, and she says that one is actually wrong. If you're going to include 'to' in the sentence, it would be, "To where is he going?" That just sounds formal and old-fashioned, though. You can never say, "Where is he going to?" The ideal form in modern English would be, "Where is he going?"

Worira

2013-03-09, 07:25 PM

It's poor style, but grammatically fine.

Androgeus

2013-03-09, 07:27 PM

English measurements are transformed to metric. Well, that should happen regardless of what language you're speaking.

Long distances are still done imperial, mainly because it would be too expensive to replace all the road signage

--Lime--

2013-03-09, 07:35 PM

Welcome to England: buy petrol in litres, express fuel consumption in miles per gallon.

Heliomance

2013-03-09, 07:37 PM

Of course, if we're going back sixty years, we're going to have to have words about ending clauses with prepositions, and I don't think anyone's clamouring for a return to that.
That is the sort of arrant pedantry up with which we will not put.

On the other hand, the American pronunciations are more "correct"; the English accent started later. So maybe you don't want to say "maths" or "schedule". (Thanks to British P-Chem prof. and British television, I now say 'shedual'. It's awful.)

"Maths" is a contraction of"mathematics". Leaving off the s is nonsensical.

noparlpf

2013-03-09, 07:39 PM

"Maths" is a contraction of "mathematics". Leaving off the s is nonsensical.

Yeah, a singular "math" is just boring. I prefer to have all the maths in my maths.

SaintRidley

2013-03-09, 07:42 PM

"Maths" is a contraction of"mathematics". Leaving off the s is nonsensical.

Math is an abbreviation of "mathematics." Truncating the word and then keeping the last letter is nonsensical.

Hooray! Both are both nonsensical and cromulent!

Heliomance

2013-03-09, 07:44 PM

Math is an abbreviation of "mathematics." Truncating the word and then keeping the last letter is nonsensical.

It's a plural, though.

Worira

2013-03-09, 07:45 PM

It's a plural, though.

Really? What exactly is one mathematic?

noparlpf

2013-03-09, 07:49 PM

Really? What exactly is one mathematic?

I dunno, addition? What good is addition? Addition is boring.

SaintRidley

2013-03-09, 07:52 PM

It's a plural, though.

So? It's a plural that acts like a singular over here. "Math(ematics) is hard." "Math(ematics) is easy." "Math(ematics) does not just go away once you graduate high school; it's still going to be relevant."

Heliomance

2013-03-09, 08:02 PM

Really? What exactly is one mathematic?

What is one trouser, or one scissor? Have you ever heard of a single tweezer, or a pyjama?

Coidzor

2013-03-09, 08:17 PM

That is the sort of arrant pedantry up with which we will not put.

Today I learned Arrant. I'm ok with this, even if it does look like it'd be a homophone with errant.

"Maths" is a contraction of"mathematics". Leaving off the s is nonsensical.

How so? We don't call it a trousers snake, we call it a trouser snake and no one thinks it's nonsensical.

What is one trouser, or one scissor? Have you ever heard of a single tweezer, or a pyjama?

Then it ain't a plural then, is it? Scissors isn't a plural, nor is plural or pajamas or pyjamas.

I always thought Trousers evolved from leggings because leggings were at one point separate wossnames on each leg that got connected later on once they figured out seams.

Heliomance

2013-03-09, 08:21 PM

Then it ain't a plural then, is it? Scissors isn't a plural, nor is plural or pajamas or pyjamas.

Yes they are. They all take the grammatical forms of plurals - you don't say "Where is the scissors?" you say "Where are the scissors?"
Though I think I may have just shot down my own argument - mathematics generally takes the singular forms.

snoopy13a

2013-03-09, 10:33 PM

I dispute your example, I find that perfectly fine.

I find your lack of a semicolon disturbing . . . :smalltongue:

Once you've embraced the darkside of the Grammar, we will be able to overthrow the Comma Splice and rule this language!

I think we've had a semicolon discussion before. These grammar threads come up every few months or so.

An Enemy Spy

2013-03-09, 10:41 PM

I dunno, addition? What good is addition? Addition is boring.

Addition is plural by its very nature. If you have one number, then add another one, you no longer have a singular number.

Rawhide

2013-03-09, 10:52 PM

My mum's an English teacher, and she says that one is actually wrong. If you're going to include 'to' in the sentence, it would be, "To where is he going?" That just sounds formal and old-fashioned, though. You can never say, "Where is he going to?" The ideal form in modern English would be, "Where is he going?"

Why is it wrong? Because it ends on a preposition? We just had that discussion.

It works, it makes sense, it doesn't feel unnatural, it's grammatically fine. I'd say it and write it in any informal context. I wouldn't put it in an essay, unless it was what someone said.

I find your lack of a semicolon disturbing . . . :smalltongue:

Once you've embraced the darkside of the Grammar, we will be able to overthrow the Comma Splice and rule this language!

I think we've had a semicolon discussion before. These grammar threads come up every few months or so.

I really dislike the semicolon (in pretty much all cases except the super comma). It's archaic and can go die in a fire.

In informal writing, I'll happily use the comma splice or some other form of punctuation which works. In formal writing, I'll rewrite the section until it's not needed.

The Extinguisher

2013-03-09, 11:59 PM

English (CAN) is clearly superior, but is almost never supported :smallfrown:
We have our own unique spellings too, you know!
:smallbiggrin:

English (CAN) is my favourite, because it speaks a lot about us as a country. We can't decide if we want to be British or American.

Eldan

2013-03-10, 08:23 AM

I think people don't use dashes often enough.

Rawhide

2013-03-10, 08:29 AM

I think people don't use dashes often enough.

One of my favourite ways to avoid semicolons, and to better format instead of only commas and/or brackets.

Aedilred

2013-03-10, 09:03 AM

'-ize' words become '-ise' (e.g. rationalise, randomise)
It's more complicated than that, as it happens. The Oxford style guide gives -ize as universally correct and "-ise" as an alternative in a few cases. As far as I can tell, the distinction between -ise and -ize is largely unrelated to the difference between US and Commonwealth Englishes but has been entrenched as such in the minds of the population by spellcheckers.

English measurements are transformed to metric. Well, that should happen regardless of what language you're speaking.
Again, it's more complicated than that. I used to be baffled whenever I saw a US show getting mileage out of the UK's use of the metric system, because we still consider ourselves holdouts against metric (whether that's a good or a bad thing is up to the individual to decide). A very large number - probably a majority - of Englanders still use Imperial measurements on a day-to-day basis. Certainly, height will almost always be in feet and inches and (an individual's) weight in stones and pounds. Milk tends to come in pints (depending where you get it). Beer always comes in pints. Distance is usually in miles, and miles are still used officially on road signs and the like.

Metric is widely used, especially when dealing with food sales, etc. (see the "Metric Martyrs"), but in common parlance imperial measurements are probably at least as common. Even the EU has given up on trying to persuade us to switch to metric completely.

On the other hand, the American pronunciations are more "correct"; the English accent started later.
Again, not so much. It depends on the accent, of course: we have a lot. The West Country accent/dialect, and the Yorkshire accent/dialect in particular, are probably the closest remaining to the pre-unification language, and therefore the most "correct" if you're assessing things on that basis (you shouldn't). A lot of Americanisms were also deliberately introduced in the late 18th/early 19th century by Webster in order to differentiate American English from British English, so there's no universal rule about which language is older.

Thufir

2013-03-10, 09:06 AM

What did semicolons ever do to you, Rawhide?

Also, the debate over "Where is he going to" has set me off singing Another suitcase in another hall...

Androgeus

2013-03-10, 09:12 AM

Milk tends to come in pints (depending where you get it).

Technically it's sold in litres, it just so happens to be an exact amount of pints. (At least in supermarket/corner shops)

Adlan

2013-03-10, 03:25 PM

nedz

2013-03-10, 04:29 PM

How so? We don't call it a trousers snake, we call it a trouser snake and no one thinks it's nonsensical.
But those things are not plural, well usually.

Addition is plural by its very nature. If you have one number, then add another one, you no longer have a singular number.
You've obviously never come across unary operators.

Anglo-Saxon. I have a certain fondness for using some of the words which have been displaced over the past thousand years.
Actually Anglo and Saxon were two different, but very similar, languages.
Ik been on Inglis Mon — Anglo
Ich been an Inglis Man — Saxon
Other languages were involved in making early middle English also, mainly Old Danish and Norman-French.

Again, it's more complicated than that. I used to be baffled whenever I saw a US show getting mileage out of the UK's use of the metric system, because we still consider ourselves holdouts against metric (whether that's a good or a bad thing is up to the individual to decide).
It's funnier when you realise that the US system of weights and measures was abandoned by the UK back in the 19th Century. 1 US Gallon != 1 Imperial Gallon.

Did they mention this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter) also, perchance ? :smallbiggrin:

SaintRidley

2013-03-10, 04:53 PM

Actually Anglo and Saxon were two different, but very similar, languages.
Ik been on Inglis Mon — Anglo
Ich been an Inglis Man — Saxon
Other languages were involved in making early middle English also, mainly Old Danish and Norman-French.

Anglo is not a language. Anglian gave rise to two dialects of Old English, Northumbrian and Mercian (also known as East Anglian), derived from the language of the Angles. The Saxon language used in the main land would never have used Inglis as a referent, given that Inglis derives from the Angles. The Saxon dialect used in England, West Saxon, did, but by the end of the Anglo-Saxon period had already enjoyed several hundred years alongside Northumbrian, Mercian, and Kentish dialects until they, as an aggregate, were more alike to each other (and more thoroughly mixed) than to their mainland cousins. That aggregate is what I'm talking about, because that aggregate of dialects is a language.

If you'll trust me as someone whose work is the study of Old English literature, that language is commonly referred to as Anglo-Saxon.

Also. Ic eom Englisc mann - Anglo-Saxon.

Coidzor

2013-03-10, 05:00 PM

But those things are not plural, well usually.

Well, if you can figure out what a singular math is, more power to you, as I'll certainly not be the only one impressed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CccPPDe2JU).

nedz

2013-03-10, 09:13 PM

Anglo is not a language. Anglian gave rise to two dialects of Old English, Northumbrian and Mercian (also known as East Anglian), derived from the language of the Angles. The Saxon language used in the main land would never have used Inglis as a referent, given that Inglis derives from the Angles. The Saxon dialect used in England, West Saxon, did, but by the end of the Anglo-Saxon period had already enjoyed several hundred years alongside Northumbrian, Mercian, and Kentish dialects until they, as an aggregate, were more alike to each other (and more thoroughly mixed) than to their mainland cousins. That aggregate is what I'm talking about, because that aggregate of dialects is a language.

If you'll trust me as someone whose work is the study of Old English literature, that language is commonly referred to as Anglo-Saxon.

Also. Ic eom Englisc mann - Anglo-Saxon.

Well the difference between a dialect and a language is always debated, certainly when they were this close. I guess it depends upon how you view the pre-migration source languages, to which I don't know the answer, and at which point, in what was quite a long time period, you look. The sources though, I believe, are scant.

nedz

2013-03-10, 09:15 PM

Well, if you can figure out what a singular math is, more power to you, as I'll certainly not be the only one impressed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CccPPDe2JU).

I was talking about the snake :smallsmile:

Siosilvar

2013-03-10, 09:20 PM

One of my favourite ways to avoid semicolons, and to better format instead of only commas and/or brackets.

I don't know; I rather like them myself--but then again, my writing does tend to look like Emily Dickinson's (and my high school English teachers told me as much). :smallwink:

Xuc Xac

2013-03-10, 09:22 PM

Well the difference between a dialect and a language is always debated, certainly when they were this close.

A language is a dialect with an army.

nedz

2013-03-10, 09:59 PM

LOL,
but a case in point
Is Lollands (Scots) a different language from English, or a dialect ?
Lollands is derived principally from Northumbrian.
People have debated this for many years.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

2013-03-10, 11:00 PM

... you mean Lowlands?

Adlan

2013-03-11, 03:14 AM

LOL,
but a case in point
Is Lollands (Scots) a different language from English, or a dialect ?
Lollands is derived principally from Northumbrian.
People have debated this for many years.

Lowlands Scots is as English as a Dialect the same way as Broad Norfolk, West Country or other rural dialects are, descended from the common pool of the english language with their own loan words, grammatical constructions and retained anachronism's lost elsewhere.

I think that its largely the romanticism applied to Scotland that leads it to being considered a separate language.

Gallic, Gealic, Welsh and Cornish are all different languages to English, Scots is Comprehendible to an English speaker with only a few issues of vocal.

nedz

2013-03-11, 05:27 AM

Lallands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language), sorry,

Maugan Ra

2013-03-11, 06:25 AM

I grew up speaking BBC English, and didn't realise that it was considered posh and maybe a little pretentious until I was in secondary school. After some consideration, I decided that I would keep speaking as I always had, because I was clearly right and everyone else was clearly wrong.

Oddly, I've found that foreigners tend to find my accent easier to understand than most, even now that I live in Scotland.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

2013-03-11, 06:42 AM

I used to put on a british accent to hide my r-less speech impediment better when I was a kid. Apparently it still gives me a tint of an adorable accent. :smallwink:

KuReshtin

2013-03-11, 06:46 AM

Obviously, Swedish is the best language.

lesser_minion

2013-03-11, 11:34 AM

This being a gaming forum, I might be legally obliged to say something about moose at this juncture.

That said, I was under the impression that this was a dialect war, not a language war.

noparlpf

2013-03-11, 01:20 PM

I've always wondered, if the plural of mouse is mice, why isn't the plural of spouse spice?

Eldan

2013-03-11, 01:51 PM

Are you pretending that there is any kind of logic in the English language?

factotum

2013-03-11, 02:32 PM

I've always wondered, if the plural of mouse is mice, why isn't the plural of spouse spice?

Seriously? Probably because the plural of "spouse" is not a commonly used word (most people not having more than one in English-speaking countries :smallwink:) and therefore hasn't had the same evolution through usage that "mice" has. You see the same thing in other plurals of commonly and not-so-commonly used words--for instance, the commonly used word "knife" has the plural "knives", whereas the much less regularly used word "dwarf" has the plural "dwarfs".

noparlpf

2013-03-11, 02:42 PM

Seriously? Probably because the plural of "spouse" is not a commonly used word (most people not having more than one in English-speaking countries :smallwink:) and therefore hasn't had the same evolution through usage that "mice" has. You see the same thing in other plurals of commonly and not-so-commonly used words--for instance, the commonly used word "knife" has the plural "knives", whereas the much less regularly used word "dwarf" has the plural "dwarfs".

Only jokingly as an example of inconsistent rules, to be honest. Normally people would point out "houses" but I can't do something mainstream, obviously.
Also, I've seen "dwarves"...

lesser_minion

2013-03-11, 03:10 PM

I'm pretty sure that the only language out there that doesn't have any irregular elements is LISP, which is not really the sort of thing people normally use to communicate with each other.

noparlpf

2013-03-11, 04:26 PM

Joran

2013-03-11, 05:05 PM

I don't know; I rather like them myself--but then again, my writing does tend to look like Emily Dickinson's (and my high school English teachers told me as much). :smallwink:

Typography snobs are cringing at your use of double dashes to denote an em dash (—). ;)

I wish I could use em dashes properly, but I still haven't figured out where they go nor how to get one from a keyboard. I had to copy/paste one from a website to get the one I used above.

I finally broke myself of the habit of putting two spaces after a period.

noparlpf

2013-03-11, 05:12 PM

Typography snobs are cringing at your use of double dashes to denote an em dash (—). ;)

I wish I could use em dashes properly, but I still haven't figured out where they go nor how to get one from a keyboard. I had to copy/paste one from a website to get the one I used above.

I finally broke myself of the habit of putting two spaces after a period.

But only the super-snobbish ones. As there is no em dash on the standard English keyboard, most people will let you get away with a double-hyphen instead.

It's Alt-0151 on Windows, by the way.

kurokotetsu

2013-03-11, 05:16 PM

Spanish has a lot of irregular verb conjugations, but the pronunciation is fairly consistent. I don't know, but I'd guess Italian is relatively similar. Anyway, this is swiftly leaving behind any semblance of being on-topic.Spanish pronunciation is entirely regular. In modern day Spanish (excluding anglicisms and a few other neologisms) the pronunciation of any word is self evident by spelling alone, as rules about pronunciation have no exceptions. And not that many irregular verb conjugations (although a lot of the most common verbs are irregular), but conjugations certainly are more divergent than those found on other languages.

But what is this all about again? What dialect is better? Evolution and influences of modern day English? Preferences of dialects and spellings? To most of that I say, "to each his own".

snoopy13a

2013-03-11, 05:18 PM

But only the super-snobbish ones. As there is no em dash on the standard English keyboard, most people will let you get away with a double-hyphen instead.

It's Alt-0151 on Windows, by the way.

But only in an informal writing--like a forum post or an e-mail.

Coidzor

2013-03-11, 05:19 PM

But only in an informal writing--like a forum post or an e-mail.

Well, yes, Formal Writing is a priggish thing.

SaintRidley

2013-03-11, 05:54 PM

I've always wondered, if the plural of mouse is mice, why isn't the plural of spouse spice?

Mouse comes from an Old English athematic noun - it changes in the singular genitive and dative and plural nominative and accusative by changing the root vowel. Spouse is from Old French, which doesn't have that kind of mutation (Middle English was very irregular and resulted in a wide variance of attempts to pluralize spouse, some of which early on involved mutating the root vowel). House, incidentally, was an Old English strong noun and declined normally for a neuter noun (hus = nom/acc singular and plural). Most of our Old English nouns got corralled into the Strong masculine paradigm as we moved toward Modern English, but a number of our athematic nouns make up a chunk of our irregular nouns today.

Mouse - mus, myss in plural. (Old English)
House - hus singular and plural. (Old English)
spouse - sp(o)use, sp(o)u(/i)se(s(se)) plural. (Middle English)

noparlpf

2013-03-11, 06:22 PM

Mouse comes from an Old English athematic noun - it changes in the singular genitive and dative and plural nominative and accusative by changing the root vowel. Spouse is from Old French, which doesn't have that kind of mutation (Middle English was very irregular and resulted in a wide variance of attempts to pluralize spouse, some of which early on involved mutating the root vowel). House, incidentally, was an Old English strong noun and declined normally for a neuter noun (hus = nom/acc singular and plural). Most of our Old English nouns got corralled into the Strong masculine paradigm as we moved toward Modern English, but a number of our athematic nouns make up a chunk of our irregular nouns today.

Mouse - mus, myss in plural. (Old English)
House - hus singular and plural. (Old English)
spouse - sp(o)use, sp(o)u(/i)se(s(se)) plural. (Middle English)

Is there any chance I can download a copy of your brain and keep it bookmarked for whenever I want to look this stuff up? That's really neat.

nedz

2013-03-11, 07:37 PM

So — to bring this debate back into the topic — are American-English and British-English two different dialects, or two different languages ?

noparlpf

2013-03-11, 07:44 PM

Dialects. We can understand each other perfectly except for some of the slang. (Or apparently some particularly unintelligible West Country accents.)

Heliomance

2013-03-11, 07:45 PM

Seriously? Probably because the plural of "spouse" is not a commonly used word (most people not having more than one in English-speaking countries :smallwink:) and therefore hasn't had the same evolution through usage that "mice" has. You see the same thing in other plurals of commonly and not-so-commonly used words--for instance, the commonly used word "knife" has the plural "knives", whereas the much less regularly used word "dwarf" has the plural "dwarfs".

Actually, "dwarves" tends to be more commonly used these days, I think. Though Chrome's inbuilt spellchecker doesn't recognise it.

I'm pretty sure that the only language out there that doesn't have any irregular elements is LISP, which is not really the sort of thing people normally use to communicate with each other.

Lojban.

lesser_minion

2013-03-11, 08:29 PM

Lojban.

Alright, I'll give you that one, although it's kind of rare, isn't it?

nedz

2013-03-11, 08:44 PM

Actually, "dwarves" tends to be more commonly used these days, I think. Though Chrome's inbuilt spellchecker doesn't recognise it.

Dwarves was a Tolkien innovation.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

2013-03-11, 08:57 PM

Dwarves was a Tolkien innovation.

Elves as well, to distance his creations from the folkmyths around elfs and dwarfs.

Xuc Xac

2013-03-11, 09:39 PM

Elves as well, to distance his creations from the folkmyths around elfs and dwarfs.

No, the plural of "elf" was always "elves". Tolkien used "dwarves" instead of "dwarfs" to make it consistent with "elves".

--Lime--

2013-03-11, 10:14 PM

Actually, "dwarves" tends to be more commonly used these days, I think. Though Chrome's inbuilt spellchecker doesn't recognise it.

There is a graph which disagrees with you:
http://grammarist.com/usage/dwarfs-dwarves/
Interesting point to consider from the article: using dwarf as a verb always results in "dwarfs" as a third-person singular - "the Death Star dwarfs all other structures in the galaxy".

On that note, "...graph which..." or "...graph that..."? I am aware that there is a grammatical difference, but I suspect that it is being eroded, and both will soon become equally acceptable, if they aren't already. And "already" is another "since-the-fifties" invention: if you are a pedant you might pluck for "all ready".

"Different to" and "different from" are acceptable worldwide; "different than" is US-only (maybe Canada and Australia too, I'm not well-versed in those)

I draw a distinction between "artifact" and "artefact", but you shouldn't trust my personal preference. By all means, trust me when I say things as fact, not opinion (and I think the fact is that "artifact" is US, but widely accepted in the UK, whereas "artefact" is UK-only) - but for years I drew a distinction between "center" as the middle of something, and "centre" as a hub for something - as in "shopping centre" and "town centre", but "center of a circle" and "center of the town". Which is a bastardisation of both variations. I have since gone with "centre" for both, as I am a UK native.

Are you a UK (or other native English) speaker who says "My grandfather used to say..."? You are technically incorrect (something else I disagree with). You should say "he use to say...". I disagree with this heavily. However, I am a fully qualified teacher of English as a foreign language, and they insisted on this during certification.

SaintRidley

2013-03-11, 10:21 PM

Fun facts on Elves and Dwarves vs. Elfs and Dwarfs.

Going by citations in the OED online, Dwarfs appears to have been the dominant pre-Tolkien plural, though Dwarves is attested in The Monthly Magazine and British Register in 1818 by a W. Taylor - "The history of Laurin, king of the dwarves."

Some earlier versions of dwarf pluralize without the /f/ or /v/ sound.

Mandeville's Travels has dwerghs (1400) and Kyng Alisaunder has durwes (c.1400-1425)

Elfs/Elves is interesting. The Anglo-Saxon word ælf would be pronounced with a /v/ rather than an /f/ in the plural. Elves appears to be more standard than Elfs. Elves appears in G. Douglas's translation of Virgil (elvis, 1515), Ralph Roister Doister (elues, c. 1556), Shakespeare's The Tempest (Elves, c. 1616), R. Herrick Descr. King and Queen of Fayries (Elves, 1635), Hobbes's Leviathan (1651), Alexander Pope's Rape of the Lock (Elves, 1714), and B. Taylor's translation of Goethe's Faust (elves, 1871).

Elfs, on the other hand, appears in Spenser's shepheardes Calendar ("For Guelfes and Gibelines, we say Elfes and Goblins", 1579), and John Dryden's version of Chaucer's The Wife of Bath's Tale (elfs, 1700) and appears to have been nonstandard.

Mando Knight

2013-03-11, 11:49 PM

Are you a UK (or other native English) speaker who says "My grandfather used to say..."? You are technically incorrect (something else I disagree with). You should say "he use to say...". I disagree with this heavily. However, I am a fully qualified teacher of English as a foreign language, and they insisted on this during certification.

This is silly. My grandfather certainly isn't saying it now, so it should be "used to say."

Goosefeather

2013-03-11, 11:57 PM

Spanish pronunciation is entirely regular. In modern day Spanish (excluding anglicisms and a few other neologisms) the pronunciation of any word is self evident by spelling alone, as rules about pronunciation have no exceptions. And not that many irregular verb conjugations (although a lot of the most common verbs are irregular), but conjugations certainly are more divergent than those found on other languages.

However, the reverse is not true - hearing an unknown word in spoken Spanish is not always enough to know how to spell it correctly. This is mainly due to b/v being pronounced identically, though z/c/s can also cause problems in places lacking 'cecear' pronunciation (i.e. Latin America and various parts of Spain) - for example, 'casar' (to marry) and 'cazar' (to hunt) are homophonous in many dialects. Hence Spanish is not quite 100% phonetic as a language, though it comes pretty close.

On that note, "...graph which..." or "...graph that..."? I am aware that there is a grammatical difference, but I suspect that it is being eroded, and both will soon become equally acceptable, if they aren't already.

In the UK, there is no grammatical difference. It's a US rule, and one with no real linguistic basis behind it.

Are you a UK (or other native English) speaker who says "My grandfather used to say..."? You are technically incorrect (something else I disagree with). You should say "he use to say...". I disagree with this heavily. However, I am a fully qualified teacher of English as a foreign language, and they insisted on this during certification.

I have never ever heard this. Nor can I find any source backing it up. The simple past tense of the verb 'use' is 'used', in all persons, and I have never heard otherwise. 'Did he use to...' is fine, but that's using the infinitive, and a different question entirely. Would you mind providing a source for this rule? I'm curious now... :smalltongue:

Empedocles

2013-03-12, 12:03 AM

--Lime--

2013-03-12, 12:21 AM

I have never ever heard this. Nor can I find any source backing it up. The simple past tense of the verb 'use' is 'used', in all persons, and I have never heard otherwise. 'Did he use to...' is fine, but that's using the infinitive, and a different question entirely. Would you mind providing a source for this rule? I'm curious now... :smalltongue:

I agree with you (or you with me) so I'm not about to get on a high horse about it. Still, I'll check my books, see what turns up. I certainly remember it being taught that way, and having objections.

SaintRidley

2013-03-12, 12:59 AM

This is actually quite interesting.

On a different, but related note however, wasn't "elfish" the commonly accepted adjective form of elf, as opposed to the more Tolkien "elven"?

Looking into it, this turns out interesting. Elven is an older form but a noun, and not an attributive.

Note that elf in this context was rather broad in meaning and referred to most any kind of spirit or fairy.

Elven, noun. (My translations of these early ones in italics after each entry).

a1100 in T. Wright & R. P. Wülcker Anglo-Saxon & Old Eng. Vocab. (1884) I. 189 Oreades, muntælfen. Dryades, wuduelfen. Moides, feldelfen. Hamadryades, wylde elfen. Naiades, sæelfen. Castalides, dunelfen. Oread: mound elf, Dryad: wood-elf, Moid: field elf, Hamadryad: wild elf, Naiad: sea elf, Castalid: mountain elf
c1275 (1200) Laȝamon Brut (Calig.) (1978) l. 10977 Alfene [c1300 Otho aluene] hine dulfen. The elf studied(?) him
1297 R. Gloucester's Chron. 130 Þer beþ in þe eir an hey..wyȝtes..þat men clepuþ eluene. There be in the air on high wights (creatures) that men call elves
c1330 (1300) Guy of Warwick (Auch.) l. 3862 A brond Þat was y-made in eluene lond. A torch that was made in the land of elves.

That last one is probably best translated as genitive, which can function attributively, and is probably the sense which Tolkien had in mind when he decided to use Elven as his attributive.

As for Elfish, there is an older form of the attributive: Elvish.

Elvish:

1386 Chaucer Sir Thopas Prol. 13 He semeth eluyssh by his contenance.
c1386 Chaucer Canon's Yeoman's Prol. & Tale 198 Whan we been there as we shul exercise Oure Eluysshe craft.
c1400 (1390) Sir Gawain & Green Knight (1940) l. 681 Wyth an aluisch mon.
1529 T. More Dialoge of Comfort ii, in Wks. 1182/2 Eye, what eyleth this gyrle? that eluish vrchin weneth I wer a diuell I trow.
1549 J. Cheke Hurt of Sedicion sig. B4, Where..pratynge is iuged wysdome, and the eluischest is most mete to rule.
1566 J. Studley tr. Seneca Agamemnon v. iv. sig. G.iv v, Thou malipert and witles wench thyne eluysh pratyng staye.
1597 Bp. J. Hall Defiance to Envy in Virgidemiarvm sig. A5, Scoure the rusted swords of Eluish knights.
1601 A. Dent Path-way to Heauen 425 He regardeth not our infirmities, though we be oftentimes wayward and eluish.
1601 P. Holland tr. Pliny Hist. World II. 258 Sow-bread sodden in water, cureth the eluish & angry kibes..vpon the heels.
1607 E. Topsell Hist. Fovre-footed Beastes 412 The Crowne-scab [in horses]..is an eluish and painful disease.
1815 Scott Lord of Isles i. xxi. 29 Wild sparkles..the vessel's sides With elvish lustre lave.
1834 W. Beckford Italy II. 77 These oracular little elvish beings.
1840 E. Bulwer-Lytton Pilgrims of Rhine xxx, Elvish spells.

Bold dates here indicate a simple attributive. Italic dates indicate that elvish was used to mean tricky or mischievous.

Elfish:

1542 N. Udall tr. Erasmus Apophthegmes f. 296v, The Cypres tree..is elfishe and frowarde to spryng vp.
1582 R. Stanyhurst tr. Virgil First Foure Bookes Æneis ii. 43 The goast of verye Creüsa..mad her elfish aparance.
a1791 Yng. Tom Line xv, in F. J. Child Eng. & Sc. Pop. Ballads (1884) I. ii. 343/2 If my lord were an earthly knight, As he's an elfish grey.
1798 S. T. Coleridge Anc. Marinere iv, in Wordsworth & S. T. Coleridge Lyrical Ballads 24 The elfish light Fell off in hoary flakes.
a1802 Yng. Tamlane xxxii, in F. J. Child Eng. & Sc. Pop. Ballads (1884) I. ii. 354/2 Then would I never tire..In Elfish land to dwell.
1856 E. K. Kane Arctic Explor. I. xxviii. 372 Three men, Ootuniak, our elfish rogue Myouk, and a stranger.
1876 E. A. Freeman Hist. Norman Conquest I. App. 770 The elfish names are mainly English.

So, yeah. Lots of fun to be had there. Tolkien is definitely the first to get Elven as an adjective, though. That much is pretty certain.

I particularly like the one in Elvish which gives us "Where prating is judged wisdom and the elvishest is most fit to rule." I'll have to keep that one in my head for future use.

kurokotetsu

2013-03-12, 01:20 AM

However, the reverse is not true - hearing an unknown word in spoken Spanish is not always enough to know how to spell it correctly. This is mainly due to b/v being pronounced identically, though z/c/s can also cause problems in places lacking 'cecear' pronunciation (i.e. Latin America and various parts of Spain) - for example, 'casar' (to marry) and 'cazar' (to hunt) are homophonous in many dialects. Hence Spanish is not quite 100% phonetic as a language, though it comes pretty close.True, but there are some further subtleties if you want to dig deep. The way b/v is mostly the same pronunciation, but some people do mark a difference (like in English, "vivisection" and "ball") for different reasons. And there are two related but different phenomena for confusion of z/s/c, which are homophones, "sesear" and "cecear". The first uses the "s" pronunciation far all (very common in Latin America) and the second uses the "c/z" sound for all the words (rarer, mostly confined to Southern Spain, most noticeable in the region of Andalusia). Both result in the same confusion, but are very different in the spoken language. For further problems of passing form speech to writing, you should also add the silent "h" that a few words have. Spanish isn't phonetic 100% (the closest I've studied to that would be Japanese, but restricting writing to the phonetic alphabets, hiragana and katakana), but it is much more regular than most languages ("natural" languages, Lobjan, Esperanto and other conlangs are much more regular) get to being regular in its phonetics.

Maybe should someone change the title of the thread to "Studies of English language", some very interesting posts about the evolution of English are being done.

Xuc Xac

2013-03-12, 02:57 AM

And "already" is another "since-the-fifties" invention: if you are a pedant you might pluck for "all ready".

Which "fifties"? The 1350s? "Already" has been in use since the 14th century.

hamishspence

2013-03-12, 08:03 AM

My original theory was that "dwarf-dwarves" and "elf-elves" were a nod to similar plurals:

Wolf-wolves
Shelf-shelves
Leaf-leaves
Self-selves

Seriously? Probably because the plural of "spouse" is not a commonly used word (most people not having more than one in English-speaking countries :smallwink:) and therefore hasn't had the same evolution through usage that "mice" has.

I remember it best from "Diamonds are a girl's best friend."

"It's then that those louses,
Go back to their spouses."

noparlpf

2013-03-12, 08:05 AM

Hoof-hooves

But what about
Roof-roofs

hamishspence

2013-03-12, 08:13 AM

That is a bit of an exception. And roof is a pretty common word.

"Wife" becomes "wives" not "wifes".

noparlpf

2013-03-12, 08:19 AM

That is a bit of an exception. And roof is a pretty common word.

"Wife" becomes "wives" not "wifes".

I don't think I say "roof" or "roofs" any more often than I say "wolf/ves", "shelf/ves", "leaf/ves", "elf/ves", "dwarf/ves". Probably actually significantly less often than any of those.

SaintRidley

2013-03-12, 08:20 AM

noparlpf

2013-03-12, 10:40 AM

Rooves has a history of use as a version of the plural, beginning at least as far back as the Wycliffe Bible in 1382, and being used by George Orwell and (most recently among the OED examples) by John Berger in his book Lilac and Flag in 1992.

Hmm. I'm pretty sure I've usually seen it spelled "roofs" here and Firefox is saying "rooves" is wrong. Right now I'm on a school computer using Chrome, which says either works.

Keld Denar

2013-03-12, 12:12 PM

SMS may be to blame for some of the dumbing down of the English language, but having recently switched my input mode on my smart phone to Swype, which doesn't understand SMS shortcuts (unless you program them in) and does care about spelling, for the most part, my spelling as actually improved. I'm remembering the spelling for words better because if I don't get them, I have to redo it or manually type it out until I get something similar. My smart phone is actually making me smarter!

SaintRidley

2013-03-12, 03:19 PM

Hmm. I'm pretty sure I've usually seen it spelled "roofs" here and Firefox is saying "rooves" is wrong. Right now I'm on a school computer using Chrome, which says either works.

Yeah. Roofs is more common now than rooves. Just noting that rooves has a history of use. Really up to personal preference there, I think.

Siosilvar

2013-03-12, 03:38 PM

"Rooves" is definitely nonstandard at the present except as how most people I know, myself included, pronounce "roofs".

noparlpf

2013-03-12, 03:39 PM

Yeah. Roofs is more common now than rooves. Just noting that rooves has a history of use. Really up to personal preference there, I think.

Neat. I am going to start spelling it "rooves" because it's more consistent and I get to be more of a hipster (which I'm only acting like ironically in the first place, so it's okay.)

Empedocles

2013-03-12, 03:58 PM

Looking into it, this turns out interesting. Elven is an older form but a noun, and not an attributive.

Note that elf in this context was rather broad in meaning and referred to most any kind of spirit or fairy.

Elven, noun. (My translations of these early ones in italics after each entry).

That last one is probably best translated as genitive, which can function attributively, and is probably the sense which Tolkien had in mind when he decided to use Elven as his attributive.

As for Elfish, there is an older form of the attributive: Elvish.

Elvish:

Elfish:

So, yeah. Lots of fun to be had there. Tolkien is definitely the first to get Elven as an adjective, though. That much is pretty certain.

I particularly like the one in Elvish which gives us "Where prating is judged wisdom and the elvishest is most fit to rule." I'll have to keep that one in my head for future use.

This is quite interesting. Thanks for looking it up!