From: cummings@milton.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:53:09 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

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

>>	Hardly.  You wouldn't recogniZe "original" English.  And what makes
>>it "pure"?

>Because it is the one spoken and conformed to by the original speakers
>of the language.

	No, they are the descendants of the original speakers of the
language, as are we.

	BTW, do you think English in England is standardized?

>>>Personally I have no grudge against Americans, but
>>>dammit, you guys just can't change the language like that! 

>>	You mean we were wrong when we made all the changes at the American
>>Revision of English Conference?
>      
>         You mean you had a conference for revising the language???? You
>may call me ignorant......but now that I know, this is ultimate proof of
>the sacrilege committed.

	That was sarcasm.

>>>To me, it 
>>>amounts to sacrilege! They have dropped letters from words for "convenience"
>>>Blasphemy! I can understand words going out of usage, or neologisms coined,
>>>etc. but changing the very spelling of words is an impardonable sin! 

>>	I suppose you think words have always been spelled as they are now.
>>"Spelling" used to be "spellynge," or some such thing.  Was it a sin to
>>change that?

>Not if it was done by the native speakers of the language....the British.

	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.

>>	Who's controlling the English?  Have we sent in troops to force
>>other English-speaking countries to conform to the American dialect?

>       No....but you do it quite indirectly. It is time that the corruption of
>word spellings stops.

	How?  Because others copy American style?  I fail to see this as
being our fault.

>>>Their only claim to the language
>>>is that they have learnt it right from their childhood.

>>	I.e., we are native speakers.  It is, in that sense, as much _our_
>>language as anyone else's.  Language change occurs naturally among its
>>speakers, and intent has little to do with it.
>  
>    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.

>>>But that in no way gives me the authority to change the way words are
>>>spelt! 

>>	What "authority" is needed?  What authority exists?  Anywhere?

>     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.

>>>    The major offenders: (written English)

>>	[pap deleted]

>>>3. e instead of oe and ae (as in original Latin) - fetus instead of foetus,
>>>                         hemoglobin instead of haemoglobin!

>>	Obviously, we have gone astray farther back than you think.  We
>>should never have given up on Latin!

>      Nope.....but the original spellings of words derived from that
>language should not be changed.

	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.

	[on Americans finding British accents "unfriendly"]

>>	Nice story, but I've never run into an American who has told me
>>such a thing.  Don't generaliZe.

>     Ok...sorry about that......but I just can't help comparing how most Indians
>react when confronted with a foreign accent, and how most Amercians do. When
>I talk to most of the people out here....they look at me as if I were E.T.
>talking English (in their opinion, even E.T. would have done a better job!)

	That's unfortunate.  It's unfortunate that you can't take the sort
of charitable attitude with Americans that you seem to wish others would
take with you.  I find it enriching whenever I meet people from other parts
of the world.  I certainly wouldn't call them "a bunch of idiots" if I
didn't care for their use of language.

>>	I feel a bit regretful in dignifying this drivel with a response
>>since it's such obvious flamebait, but your complete misunderstanding of
>>the way language works is an example of one of my biggest peeves.  You
>>remind me of a woman in a course I recently took on the history of English.
>>Every time we would discuss a change that took place in the language, she
>>would ask, "Why did they decide to do that?"  NOBODY DECIDED!  It JUST
>>HAPPENS!  You seem to think that we Americans got together and decided to
>>change the Language becaus we're stupid and bent on vandalizing "pure"
>>English.  It's really a bit more complex than that.  Trust me on this one.

>        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.

	[stuff about FISH spelled as GHOTI deleted]

>I did not mean to insult your intelligence....I just brought up the example
>to point out the charm of the language.

	What's charming to you is not to me.  English spelling is a mess.  I
don't advocate changing it (it wouldn't work if I did), but I fail to see
it as "charming."

	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.

	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.

	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."


	And you would be just as wrong.

-- 
Mike Cummings

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