From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: American English
Date: 16 Dec 92 01:26:47 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec15.192716.1855@netcom.com> sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:
>Mandar M. Mirashi burbles:
>>
>> [ other attributions deleted cuz Mandar hosed them ]
>
>>>>>English is now an international language. Americans may form their own
>>>>>special dialect group if they wish. If they think that weight of
>>>>>numbers should have something to do with what becomes the standard,
>>>>>then they should bow out in favour of the more numerous English
>>>>>speakers of India and Pakistan.
>>>>
>>>>It isn't necessary for there to be a single standard of English, but
>>>>if you're going to bestow favor on the standard of one region or
>>>>another, some consideration should be given to whether or not English
>>>>is the native language in the region.
>>>>
>>>
>>>America won't win on this count.  We have a number of native languages
>>>around here.  I say that "native" doesn't count anyway.  If you speak
>>>and I (or an Englishperson, to appease Mandar the Great) can 
>>>understand you, then you're an English speaker.  Cool, you count.
>>>Don't see any value added in requiring the speakers to have used
>>>the language from birth.
>>>
>>
>>Hey Roger! Are you listening? Here's a chap who doesn't see "native"
>>as you define it.
>>
>>                                                       Mandar.
>>-- 
>
>Mandar, you've really messed up the attributions here.  I am
>the "chap" to which you refer above.  Thanks for removing all doubt 
>that "male" is the default gender on the net & just about everywhere
>else.
>

Arrggghh...really sorry about that Sue! I am so embarassed.   :(


>As far as the discussion regarding "native speakers" and what
>constitutes same, it is worth noting that I completely reject
>your opinions regarding this topic as well.  I come a lot closer
>to concurring with Roger's viewpoint than yours, especially
>since I think he has a far more informed point of view.
>
>In the snippet above I was saying that anyone who speaks intelligible
>English is an English speaker, and s/he has an effect on the
>language through interactions with other English speakers.  Probably
>a proportionally greater effect than native speakers (as in, those
>who have spoken the language from birth).  There is nothing the
>matter with such innovations, although only a tiny few will be deemed
>useful by a majority of English speakers and adopted.  This opinion
>flies directly in the face of your adamant belief that we should
>all be looking up to a small subset of English speakers as the
>Keepers of the True English.
>
>
>
Yes it does; but it also flies in the face of Roger's definition of
"native" speaker (Look up your article where you asserted that the
word "native" doesn't count anyway). 

                                                            Mandar.



-- 
"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope that some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.