From: cummings@milton.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 05:59:53 GMT

mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:

>In article <cummings.712443189@milton> cummings@milton.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings) writes:
>>mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:

>>	You have a very odd sense of what is right and wrong.  You're
>>operating on the premise that only those people who are descended from the
>>originators of the language and live in roughly the same geographical area
>>have the "rights" to it.  I do not accept this.
>>
>       They do because only THEY alone can be called the rightful holders
>of the language. You are just a stubborn American who refuses to accept
>the facts. Since your ancestors were from England (that too, not all of
>them) they were also the native speakers......they must be turning in
>their graves, to see their descendants mutilate the English language.

	Again, you assert without providing a convincing reason, then you
label me stubborn.  Perhaps you don't see my point:  A language has no
"holders."  Language is public domain, get it?  Your thinking on this point
is very stilted and backwards.  You certainly won't find too many linguists
backing you up on this one.

>>>    Let me repeat....you are NOT native speakers of the language....maybe
>>>some (not all) of your forefathers were....but their predecessors seem to
>>>have contorted it..
>>
>>	I AM a native speaker of English.  I grew up with it as my first
>>language.  I didn't learn it in kindergarten.  It is my native tongue.
>>What I am not is a native of England.  You seem to confuse these two
>>concepts.
>>

>      I DID NOT confuse the two concpets. Only the residents of England
>can be considered as the native speakers of the language. I too grew up
>with English as my first language. I too was exposed to it before 
>kindergarten (In India, before you are admitted to a school, you must
>pass an interview.....I learnt ABC even before I entered kindergarten).
>However I am NOT a native speaker of the language, no more than you.

	Sorry.  You obviously don't understand the difference between a
native speaker of a language and a native of the country where the language
was born.  I find it ironic that someone such as you, who cries out for
standardization, insists on making up his own definition of a common phrase
and sticking with it.  You are the stubborn one.

>>>     Ha ha ha......try telling that to your high school teacher who used
>>>to correct your spelling mistakes.
>>
>>	That's not an answer to the question.  in the context of a high
>>school class, the teacher is the authority.  But who or what is the
>>absolute authority on English?  I claim there is none.
>>
>      Only the native speakers of the language can be considered as the
>absolute authority of the language. Changes in spellings, for example,
>can be made only if a majority of the native speakers concur. In this
>case, the native speakers are those residing in England ONLY!

	And there is concensus among the British?  Think carefully about
that one before your knee jerks and you start vomiting more drivel about
"Standard English."  This "Standard" is largely a figment of your
imagination.


>>	Why?  You simply assert this without giving a rationale.  If your
>>reasons are based on aesthetic considerations, all I can say is that's
>>simply a matter of taste, and you have no reason to expect the world to
>>accept them.
>>
>       The world??? I am only talking of the Americans here.

	Fine.  Substitute "most of everyone else" for "world."

>Colloquial variants are indeed welcome....but when you go around changing
>the spellings of words....Grrrrr.... :)

	I HAVE NEVER CHANGED THE SPELLING OF ANY WORD.  Quit talking about
how "you" changed spellings.  That's the problem.  The spelling just did
change over the course of time, and it's no easier to force Americans to
conform than it would be to force the British to conform to American.

>      Usage of wrong English in the written format is impardonable....either
>the wrongdoer should be corrected.....or else, called an idiot if he 
>refuses to correct himself.

	You sound like you think you're the Pope.  Unfortunately, your
decrees carry no weight.  And calling someone an idiot because she uses the
language she grew up with is a bit overbearing.

>>>        Yes...nobody decided...but nobody prevented the changes either! With
>>>the passage of time more and more Americans started accepting the "new"
>>>spellings.......this could have been avoided, by following standard English
>>>English.
>>
>>	You obviously know little about the history of English.  This has
>>been tried many, many times.  It just doesn't work.  The forces that shape
>>language simply cannot be stopped by organized effort.  Attempts to do so
>>are a waste of time.  Unfortunately, people such as you continue to insist
>>on ramming prescriptionist dogma down everybody's throats.  Kick and scream
>>all you want, it's futile.
>>
>        This is a case of when the upright enforcers of the language, the
>high school English teachers in America, have succumbed to using the corrupted 
>spellings. The blame squarely lies at their door. Even now it's not too
>late....follow the English English, at least in American high schools! To
>me, English teachers in America teaching the corrupted spellings to kids,
>amounts to legalising crime!

	This is...staggeringly stupid.  Why do I even try?

>>	What I do find charming is the rich variety of variants of English.
>>I find the differences pleasing, and I don't see why you are outraged by
>>them.

>     How many variants of spellings exist for commonly spelt English 
>words?? You ask why I am outraged by them....well, if there is no
>standard enforced, people will come up with  a whole variety of spellings
>for a single word, and insist that their version is the right one..just
>like you Americans have. 

	I suppose you didn't know that through most of the history of
English, there was no standardization.  Pedantry such as yours is a
relatively recent phenomenon in our language (yes, OUR language).  Don't
you realize that if the prescriptionists (like you) of earlier times had
succeeded in enforcing their brand of English, the beautiful language you
love so much would not even exist!

>Luckily, so far the phenomenon has confined itself to
>America and a few other countries. Imagine the day when every person (not
>just country) follows a different set of spellings...there would be total
>chaos.....no one would be able to understand the other person!

	Butt yew kan undurstand mee even iff I rite lyke thisse.  Allowing
variance in written English is not tantamount to chaos, and it will not
lead to the ugly state of affairs you predict.  English made it through 600
years or so without any standardization, and it never lead to a "one
person, one spelling" system.  You shouldn't try to support your already
tenuous position with wild and irrational prophecies of doom.

>>	At the risk of repeating myself, let me say this:  American English
>>is as "legitimate" a variant of the language as British English.  I do not
>>accept that the English variant is the "true" language and the American
>>version is somehow impure.  The two forms are culturally and geographically
>>isolated (somewhat) and their natural developments diverged.  There's no
>>sense attaching value judgements;  They're just different.

>        And at the risk of repeating myself, let me say *this* : The only
>legitimate English is the English English (IT IS NOT A VARIANT). All other
>forms are variants. Treating them on par is a serious error you commit.

	The serious error is yours, and it is the assumption that languages
and their variants lie on a value-based hierarchy.  No language is "better"
or "worse" than another.  Again you reiterate your idea about what is the
only "legitimate" form of English without backing it up.  Why is it that
when the English settled in America they somehow gave up their "ownership"
of the language?

	You really need to do away with the ideas of "ownership" and
"legitimacy" of language.  Languages simply are;  Stop attaching values to
them.

>>	You may not believe me, but I'm sure you would argue this the
>>opposite way had you learned English in America.  Of course your premise
>>that British English is "better" since it's the "original" would give way
>>to a diatribe on how the backward British fail to adopt our "improvements."
>>

>       I am quite a neutral observer. I learnt my English neither in
>England nor in America. I was taught the British English, but since I
>am quite an avid reader, was exposed to American spellings too. 

	I see.  You sound quite objective.  (HINT:  That was sarcasm.)

>How very
>impudent of you to call your corruption of the language an "improvement"!
>The English are NOT backward, they are the bastions of the English language
>standards.

	*sigh*  You are very literal-minded.  If you'd read my statement
again you'd see I was referring to what your position would be were you
raised with American English.

	I feel quite silly continuing this "debate."  I encounter ridiculous
attitudes such as yours all the time, and saw this as a chance to debate,
but now I see you're either too pigheaded to listen to reason, or you're
just trying to irritate Americans gratuitously.  You may have noticed that
most of the others who have followed up to you have simply dismissed you
with jokes.  I guess that's the best way to handle it.  The reason you are
taken so lightly is that mainstream thought on these issues has grown far
beyond petty value judgements such as yours.  Prescriptionism has given way to
descriptionism for the most part.

-- 
Mike Cummings

"Namoore of this!... Thy drasty rymyng is nat worth a toord!"

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english