From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Date: 30 Jul 92 04:04:28 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <cummings.712443189@milton> cummings@milton.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings) writes:
>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?
>

    The one taught in English high schools is....

>>>>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.
>
       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.

>>>	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.

No, they do not copy, but they are misinformed and confused. For example,
even now an average Indian (who has studied English) does not know all
the differences between American and English English (written English).
You have hopelessly mutilated the language, and although the proper
English may have been taught to him in school, he may be confused by the
sudden appearance of "new" spellings of familiar words.
>
>>>>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.
>

      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.
>>>>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.
>
      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!

>>>>    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.
>
       The world??? I am only talking of the Americans here.
>	[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.

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


>	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. 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!

>
>	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.


>	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. 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.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english