English: US vs. British

What separates the two? A few old spelling mistakes and some different appellations. Some colloquialisms which don't really hold in either mainstream. Very few alternative structures of phrase that are used in the UK already in dialect, or are perfectly acceptable phrases in informal speech. Does this constitute a new language?

So the language remains English.
 
British people DO NOT speak like they did in victorian times. A few spelling changes but most people are aware of them. I dont think a u should be in color but it may belong in behaviour.
 
Have a greater influence in how it is used? How so?

Many more people using it, and in more influential ways (Hollywood, for one obvious example).

It is our language and we influenced its use in America.

Note the past tense, there - these days, America influences how English is used everywhere (including in England) much more than the UK does.

It still follows forms established in the UK.

So what? It also follows forms established in continental Europe, North America and various other places. It's not some fixed, static entity.

No one is ceding control.

Technically correct, in that said cessation occurred a long time ago. So the present participle there doesn't fit. You lost control literally centuries ago.

English is our language.

Yes, it is. But not exclusively yours - its as much the property of Americans, Canadians, the Irish, etc. by now. And there's a lot more of us, than there are of you.

American English is your alternative version that follows rules set down by us.

Except for all of the places where we decide to change those rules as we see fit. Such being our prerogative, as you say.

Call it what you like. It is still our language, it came from the UK.

True enough. But a language is a living thing - where it came from, and where it now resides, need not be the same place. It's called "English" because that's where it originated - not because the people who live there now, centuries later, have any special status with regard to it.
 
British people DO NOT speak like they did in victorian times.
Really? How did "British people" speak in Victorian times?

A few spelling changes but most people are aware of them.
Such as?

I dont think a u should be in color but it may belong in behaviour.
You don't think there should be a "u" in colour? Why? What particular rationale do you have for this?
 
Last edited:
Depends on where you're from. Either cockney or like Shakespeare.
Right. :rolleyes:
And they were the only possible "choices" of how to speak during Victorian times? Like a "cockney" or the way Bill did (from some 400 years earlier).
You don't have a clue do you?

Should be obvious. Notice the u in "obvious"?
I see. So because "obvious" has a u in it "colour" shouldn't?

Edit: how, exactly, do you think Shakespeare spoke?
 
Right. :rolleyes:
And they were the only possible "choices" of how to speak during Victorian times? Like a "cockney" or the way Bill did (from some 400 years earlier).
You don't have a clue do you?

Well that settles it. The language has changed, even within the confines of the country. Game over...you lose. Dont pass go, dont collect $200.
 
Well that settles it. The language has changed, even within the confines of the country. Game over...you lose. Dont pass go, dont collect $200.
In other words you realise you were talking bollocks.
 
You dont understand dialects or accents.
Wrong, I understand British dialects/ accents quite well thank you.
You have made specific claims: e.g.
British people DO NOT speak like they did in victorian times
And then stated that during Victorian times people spoke either like a cockney or like Shakespeare.
You have failed to support this since cockney is still around, as is a West Midlands accent. (And you've ignored the multitude of other British accents).

Spelling changes are another matter.
And you have also failed to point out the claimed spellin changes (from victorian times) OR support your contention that "colour" should not have a "u" in it.
 
Many more people using it, and in more influential ways (Hollywood, for one obvious example).

You miss my point. The rules of English were established by the English people, therefore all branches off that are under predominantly our initial influence.



Note the past tense, there - these days, America influences how English is used everywhere (including in England) much more than the UK does.

You think US influences the English speakers in England more than we influence ourselves? Nonsensical.



So what? It also follows forms established in continental Europe, North America and various other places. It's not some fixed, static entity.

No it isn't fixed. But we wrote the rule book. It is still "English". It hasn't undergone evolution away from the core language.



Technically correct, in that said cessation occurred a long time ago. So the present participle there doesn't fit. You lost control literally centuries ago.

Use of the word cede implies that we relinquished something. Poor use of word here. Cede and cessation are different words. Are you confused, or changing your angle after the fact? Loss of control is irrelevant when the forms are still adhered to. Like I said, the differences are very minimal in the scheme of the languages identity.



Yes, it is. But not exclusively yours - its as much the property of Americans, Canadians, the Irish, etc. by now. And there's a lot more of us, than there are of you.

Irrelevant. Doesn't change the origins.



Except for all of the places where we decide to change those rules as we see fit. Such being our prerogative, as you say.

Difference is minimal. With global communication foibles are of less importance. Firmly ensuring it will remain 'English'. American scholars do not 'change' anything. It is just about observation of differing usage.



True enough. But a language is a living thing - where it came from, and where it now resides, need not be the same place. It's called "English" because that's where it originated - not because the people who live there now, centuries later, have any special status with regard to it.

It is called English because that is what it is. Of course languages change and evolve. But the evolution of English from the time of the split is not nearly, nearly enough to warrant it being anywhere close to a different language. The application of English in America was subject to the UK's control until the US gained independance. That is why there is little modern difference. Do not fool yourself that formal US English is some how your own and distinct to any significant degree from the mother tongue.

We will always garner special staus with regard to it because it is ours. Forged on our small isles. Spread across the world by the determination and ingenuity of our Men. You would do well to respect its origins, and the blood spilled for its emplacement.

You fought for your independance and won it, so you have choices, but those choices are very limited, for to mess around with such a powerful language would be folly.
 
And then stated that during Victorian times people spoke either like a cockney or like Shakespeare.
You have failed to support this since cockney is still around, as is a West Midlands accent. (And you've ignored the multitude of other British accents).

They still speak like Shakespear?
 
Did someone say it did?

The assertion is that the American usage is the dominant, definitive one. Not that they are separate languages.

Someone said something about calling it American LOL.

Definitive? LOL. How can a bastard be the true heir? So called easier spelling is the only factor worth remark.

The point is the difference is so negligible as to not constitute a different language, so it is therefore still ours, from us not you.

Apparently China have their own English, LOL.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~calabres/qiong-china-english-2004.pdf
 
They still speak like Shakespear?
Bearing in mind that you have no idea how Shaespeare actually spoke what's the point of your question?
Largely, yes there still exist accents that sound like his.
Shakespeare came from Stratford, near Birmingham. he may well have started with a Brummy accent, which would have been modifed by long periods spent in London. And, no, before you go assuming again a London accent (of which there are a number) is NOT a cockney accent.

Regardless what does Shakespeare have to do Victorian speech?
 
Anglo Saxon ring a bell?
John you're going to have to start being specific as opposed to posting vague hand-waving nonsense.
Anglo-Saxon qua Anglo-Saxon was dead and gone for centuries.
 
Back
Top