Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
american english
- Thread starter glosterseagul
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
MatMistake said:
Thru isn't a word here, either. People started using it, and a lot of similar things, in the 1960s and they persisted. Slang seems to be more a part of American English than it should be. I'm surprised that people here even recognise proper English most of the time.
Bennet said:
I would have agreed with you up until about 2 weeks ago watching Jerry Springer. When an Aussie stood up to comment his accent stood out so much against all the American accents
To go (Take Out) Vs Take Away.
My pet hate is the word: gotten (It's not a Word!!! and got isnt used in the same manner either )
My pet hate is the word: gotten (It's not a Word!!! and got isnt used in the same manner either
)it seems that it has ended up a word in americabousozoku said:
dictionary.com look at the sources
some pretty crappy slang has ended up as part of the english language, I think its more to do with the makers of dictionaries trying to be 'cool' (for example my browser's spell check has no problems with the word 'crappy')
'take away' is like 'take out', but not 'to go'encro said:
insted of being asked "would you like that to go?" you'd be asked "would you like to eat in or out?"
agreenster said:
I have a neighbor who does that. Its not quite as bad as boomhauer unless he gets excited but then he goes straight to unintelligable.
I heard someone say "We have Mr. Dubois[du-BWAH] here today. It's spelled like Dubois[DU-boice] except pronounced different." it was bad.
MatMistake said:
I know that things end up in the dictionary, even though they're not really words. e.g., flammable. In the 1960s, people here were too stupid to realise that inflammable meant that something was prone to burn. They thought that it meant the opposite, so the language gods removed 'in' and we've ended up with a partial word on the back of various tankers.
When people ask me if I'd like it to go, I've often thought about responding "No, I'd like to eat it here at the counter."
goodwill said:I thoroughly enjoy how Brits will never apologiZe for anything, but they will apologiSe for everything. of course only after they realiZed what they really shouldve realised.
I would get a rapping over the knuckles if I spelt realised, internalised, institutionalised, sterilised and all the rest with a Z.
macka said:
then shouldn't you pronounce them real-iced internal-iced, etc. They are pronounced with a Z so they should be spelled with a Z
Krizoitz said:
Oh, and how do you say despised, devised, and surprised?
Let's not start defending American English or British English on the grounds that either is more logical. We all know that ours (the English of both nations) is a hodgepodge language with quite possibly the least phonetic spelling system of any written language in existence. Love it for its unparalleled diversity, flexibility, and inclusion, but not for its internal consistency because it has none.
whocares said:
I had a feeling, whilst writing my earlier post, that I might be getting something wrong. But I'm still a bit confused, so any clarification you can provide would be appreciated.
The expression "the British Isles" includes Ireland, doesn't it? And I thought the island that England, Wales, and Scotland share was called "Britannia," not "Great Britain." Or is Britannia merely the latinized version of the same thing (much like Scotia = Scotland)?
On the other hand, I seem to remember seeing the full name of the country as The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so I'll concede that I'm probably wrong on this detail. But I'm not convinced every Brit is as clear on this as you are. It sure seemed to me like some of them used "Great Britain" to refer to the whole country and not just one island. Is it possible there are at least a few ignorant Brits running afoul of this distinction?
Again, any clarification would be kindly appreciated.
bousozoku said:
The problem with saying something like this is you're treating the language as if it's a static entity - it isn't. Any language, including English, evolves to follow peoples' usage of the language. So in the instance you're mentioning - "thru" was not a word in the past, but very well may be considered an actual word in the future. "Ain't" is now in most dictionaries. If you want to go back for an older example, look up "snafu".
Westside guy said:
At least, snafu has a reason other that laziness for being there--fubar should be there too.
I'm not saying that any language should not evolve but it's pathetic when a language takes on words that only exist because of the uneducated.
Awimoway said:The expression "the British Isles" includes Ireland, doesn't it? And I thought the island that England, Wales, and Scotland share was called "Britannia," not "Great Britain." Or is Britannia merely the latinized version of the same thing (much like Scotia = Scotland)?
Again, any clarification would be kindly appreciated.
Great Britain, or just plain Britain, refers to England, Scotland and Wales plus the Isle of Wight, the Isles of Scilly, the Hebrides, the Orkney and Shetland islands.
The British Isles includes Great Britain plus Ireland and the Isle of Man
The United Kingdom is Great Britian, and Northern Ireland. The full name of the state is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or just the UK
The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the UK, but are under its sovereignty along with a number of Overseas Territories. This is a bit confusing, but I think these act as seperate countrys, but follow british law, and their citizens get a british passport.
and just to confuse things a little more, the 'country code' for the United Kingdom is GBR in 3 letter form, or GB in the two letter form.
I found most of this at wikipedia.org so if there is anything more you want to know, try searching there
MatMistake said:
Thanks.
I guess I won't feel too bad for my faux pas. It is indeed a bit confusing.
It's silly for Brits to say "in anger" when they aren't talking about being angry, right? But we Americans are just as bad. We say "with a vengeance" for the same thing!Lyle said:
Now, all forms "mutation" of words over 50/100/1000 years I can understand. But where do you Brits get off calling OUR TelephoneBooth[ a TelephoneBox ?!! We made the damn thing, and it was only in very recent history
Course there is the whole Vacuum cleaner/hoover fiasco as well
The most enjoyable part for me in the languages, is just the different words that are used in normal speech (not the abnormalities). Like I hung out with a British couple in Costa Rica for a week, and everything was "That's Brilliant!" sometimes adding in the occasional "bloody"
Oh...We swapped so many that I can't now remember...
Tyler
Earendil
Course there is the whole Vacuum cleaner/hoover fiasco as well
The most enjoyable part for me in the languages, is just the different words that are used in normal speech (not the abnormalities). Like I hung out with a British couple in Costa Rica for a week, and everything was "That's Brilliant!" sometimes adding in the occasional "bloody"
Oh...We swapped so many that I can't now remember...
Tyler
Earendil
What about Indian English, with great expressions like "cent percent" instead of "100 percent." I love that.
I for one have a grudge against British English because when I was an EFL teacher, any time I tried to point out mistakes of other teachers in the area schools, they would say that what I was saying was just some "American variant of English," and that they were teaching "proper British English." It annoyed me to no end because, all but one time, they were completely wrong (I am an American, but I've lived in England for a while, and half my family is English, so I'm pretty aware of the vocab, spelling, and grammar differences).
I for one have a grudge against British English because when I was an EFL teacher, any time I tried to point out mistakes of other teachers in the area schools, they would say that what I was saying was just some "American variant of English," and that they were teaching "proper British English." It annoyed me to no end because, all but one time, they were completely wrong (I am an American, but I've lived in England for a while, and half my family is English, so I'm pretty aware of the vocab, spelling, and grammar differences).
MatMistake said:
cheers for that clarification mate, but surely you mean Northern Ireland?? as the Republic of Ireland (Eire) has absolutely nothing to do with England, Great Britain, The United Kingdom, The British Isles or anything, right?
not to forget, there's the Commonwealth too of course...thinking of it, isn't Massachussetts a commonwealth? what's that about???
oh yeah, and gotten...vile word. got isn't much better. you should never have to use those words, ever. "Do you have"...rather than "have you got", for instance.
and as Awimoway said, neither American or English is correct. Language evolves. i'm much happier now i realised this having been in NYC for 6 years now. it used to really get to me hearing some things, but now i've actually started to use American English more, if only to be understood!
what does really annoy the hell out of me though, both here and back home in England, is the will "till". I was reading the BBC news online today and saw that word used. It is not "till" it's an abbreviation of "until" and therefore should have an apostrophe, and only one L no? 'til not till.
The Hoover business: When a single brand name dominates a market, it often becomes the generic term, as in "I bought a Canon-brand Xerox machine". In England and other countries (I know this from a friend in Norway), Hoover was the major brand of vacuum cleaner so it was natural for the name to catch on as a generic.
Here's a fun joke to use with friends (but only verbally, not in print): Ask them to name the only English word containing the sequence C W M. When they give up, tell them it's vacuum. Get it?
Here's a fun joke to use with friends (but only verbally, not in print): Ask them to name the only English word containing the sequence C W M. When they give up, tell them it's vacuum. Get it?
but of course...you Americans don't speak no proper english like what we do.
sadly the english language is becoming so so bad...everytime i go home, i hate it. my accent (a mix of london and country) has become more northern england since living in nyc. work that one out.
sadly the english language is becoming so so bad...everytime i go home, i hate it. my accent (a mix of london and country) has become more northern england since living in nyc. work that one out.
Re: "TILL"
I've puzzled over this one as well (by the way: "as well", meaning "also" is much more common in British English than American, but it's a habit I picked up when I lived there). But both "until" and "till" are in dictionaries. I'm sure it's obvious that "till" is a variant of "until," but I think it has become a standard and acceptable alternative to the more slang-looking 'til. It's just another example of the illogical ways in which our language has evolved: two words that sound nearly the same and have the same meaning. Clearly one would be enough, but that's just not how it worked out.
The OED makes no mention of it being nonstandard and shows that it has a lengthy history:
I've puzzled over this one as well (by the way: "as well", meaning "also" is much more common in British English than American, but it's a habit I picked up when I lived there). But both "until" and "till" are in dictionaries. I'm sure it's obvious that "till" is a variant of "until," but I think it has become a standard and acceptable alternative to the more slang-looking 'til. It's just another example of the illogical ways in which our language has evolved: two words that sound nearly the same and have the same meaning. Clearly one would be enough, but that's just not how it worked out.
The OED makes no mention of it being nonstandard and shows that it has a lengthy history:
Oxford English Dictionary said: