From: goer@quads.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Subject: Re: English English versus *American* English
Reply-To: goer@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:20:55 GMT

mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:
>>
>>Mandar, who are these original speakers?  Are they the Saxons?  Are they
>>the many Norse tribes that settled throughout England, and left a per-
>>manent linguistic mark on the countryside?  Are they the Normans who con-
>>tributed so mightily to our vocabulary, and who eventually adopted the
>>language in toto?
>>
>>
>       You are going back to stage when the language was in its infancy...

Don't be ridiculous.  No language is ever in its "infancy."  Every language
is an internally consistent system of structures and contrasts.  What fea-
tures of, say, Beowulf, do you regard as inconsistent?  Of Chaucer?  Of the
King James Bible?  All are consistent.  All are English dialects from one
or another stage in the history of that language.  If you are going to use
originality as your criterion, then I'm afraid you stand in need of a lit-
tle correction.

>...but before the English  established colonies in America, the English
>language had stabilised to a fair extent. This is why I claim that the
>English are the original speakers.

English has been remarkably stable since about 1500, and I daresay that
American and Australian (and other native speakers) are no closer to the
original point of stabilization than are the English.  If you think other-
wise, then why not offer us some evidence, Mandar?  Let's have it.

>>The American
>>dialect(s) are also no more or less "original" than the various British
>>dialects, and so the situation there is analogous.  
>
>NO THEY ARE NOT!!!!
>
>>In fact, you'll find
>>may archaic features of English preserved in American speech that are
>>being lost in Britain, and surely vice-versa as well.
>>
>Only the original speakers of the language have the authority to
>change it (at least, as far as word spellings go!).

Mandar, how your logic wanders!  First you try to justify your awe of
standard British written English by claiming that it is more original.
You are refuted.  Then you claim that you are referring to English,
as standardized after its stabilization, must be our standard.  It is
then pointed out to you that this stabilization occurred well before
colonization, so by this standard American speakers are just as ori-
ginal as English, Canadian, Australian, etc.  What will you do now?
Will your claim be that only speakers who happened to stay in a spe-
cific geographical location have the right to define a standard?

This seems to be your position, and I find it (I might say) arbit-
rary at best.  Certainly it lacks the kind of force and elegance that
would entitle you to scorn the language of your host country, and to
describe its citizens as mangling "the" language.

>Do you laugh at standards set? Do you laugh at road signs? Do you
>laugh at the law of the country? 

Don't be ridiculous (again).  If a sign is written

	NO THRU ROAD

or

	NO THROUGH ROAD

I have no trouble distinguishing the two.  Nor do I have any trouble
understanding British spellings of words like "standardize," "honor,"
or "check."  Does this make me a law-breaker?  Mandar, get a grip on
it.  This is reality; not the fantastic world of your imagination,
where all the work you put into mastering the finer details of edu-
cated British written language is actually another step towards Nir-
vana....

-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer