Not really. As has been mentioned above, US usage in many cases is more archaic than UK usage, being derived directly from 16th century English in comparative isolation.
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.
Which english do you prefer?
- Thread starter lofight
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There's no such thing as American English. The US is the size of a zillion different European countries put together. So you have southern english, midwestern english, eastern english, west coast english and probably more. And they're almost as distinct from one another as American english is from British english.
Here's just a samaple of a single word difference to give you an idea.
http://www.popvssoda.com/
I didn't say that at all! I said it was interesting how the language had evolved differently. Neither is right or wrong they are just different. The dialects and spelling have evolved differently just as French has in France, Canada and other French speaking countries and I bet Spanish has in Spain, Mexico and other Latin countries but I don't know enough about it.
Language evolves differently from country to country and in the UK from city to city. It changes with the requirements of the people using it.
No one version is better than any other.
Anyone remember the old song: "you say tomato and I say tomato?, let's call the whole thing off"?
What I find interesting is words that are spelled the same but pronounced differently... e.g. roof, route.
Being American, I prefer American English, but I'm definitely fascinated with the British Form.
Americans definitely seem lazy, considering how many posts show:
- there, their, they're - all being used interchangeably
- it's and its - again, being used interchangeably
- then and than
- who's and whose
- lose and loose
Obviously, the list goes on, but usually, when I see these errors, they are Americans destroying English.
Americans definitely seem lazy, considering how many posts show:
- there, their, they're - all being used interchangeably
- it's and its - again, being used interchangeably
- then and than
- who's and whose
- lose and loose
Obviously, the list goes on, but usually, when I see these errors, they are Americans destroying English.
You are being over-generous to my sloppier compatriots to the detriment of your own. There are plenty of Brits who can hardly string two words together.
I'm not saying that it's only Americans, but heck, most of the people I know don't know the difference. I feel like a grammar snob, sometimes. As for spelling, I'm more lenient about that. I know some intelligent people that can't spell for anything.
People around the world are just plain getting lazy. Don't just peg it on Americans.
I know you didn't, you had quoted my response to what someone else said, to which I was still mostly steamed about.
I think that some people (outside the US) are forgetting that there are 300 million people in the US. If one sees a doofus on television talking about how his 'trailuh done blowed awah', that's hardly putting it's finger on the intellectual pulse of the entire population of the US.
For argument's sake, if the % of idiots in the US was equal to the % of idiots in the UK, wouldn't a single TV show looking for interviews be 5 times more likely to find an idiot in the US? What makes better television? A Harvard educated lawyer whose roof collapsed on his multi-million dollar home, or the unemployed guy whose trailer blew up because he was cooking meth?
According to the Oxford Dictionary, Febyooary is the common pronunciation in all English dialects. It came to be because pronouncing the "R" is difficult and sounds weird. The process is "dissimilation." And also according to the Oxford, there's a process called "analogy" in which a member of a series, being "January" here, affects the pronunciation. It even lists Febyooary before Febrooary. Besides, don't some brits take "R"'s out of pretty much every word?
Only those with a speech impediment.
You must have misread my post.
And here's where I've got to suggest you double-check your dictionary.
Of course it's moot. We've been proving that for seven pages now.
Oh sorry, I didn't mean you even though it reads that way.Only those with a speech impediment.
You must have misread my post.
people bash English all the time but the funny part is all versons of English are changing and becoming simpler.
A good example is look at German. They have 3 forms of you. They are all used differently. English USED to have 3 forms of you in it. But over time it goes simplified.
People bash it but English being simplified is not a bad thing. It has I think over 4 times as means words in it that other languages like French and German.
As some one else pointed out English is a messed up language to begin with and is considered to be the hardest language to learn. Reason for it is because of the huge amount of words and very messed up grammer rules. There are expections to every rule we have which most langauges do not have.
On top of that English is a dual based language which makes it even harder to learn. It grammatical rules and its base are not very compatible.
As for British and American versions that is what happens when each on is given a few 100 years on its own to evolve and change. American English is not a less pure version of English. British English is not any better heck it is even worse. It has changed a lot over the years to not be a very pure language either. American English is closer to the 16th century than British English is.
A good example is look at German. They have 3 forms of you. They are all used differently. English USED to have 3 forms of you in it. But over time it goes simplified.
People bash it but English being simplified is not a bad thing. It has I think over 4 times as means words in it that other languages like French and German.
As some one else pointed out English is a messed up language to begin with and is considered to be the hardest language to learn. Reason for it is because of the huge amount of words and very messed up grammer rules. There are expections to every rule we have which most langauges do not have.
On top of that English is a dual based language which makes it even harder to learn. It grammatical rules and its base are not very compatible.
As for British and American versions that is what happens when each on is given a few 100 years on its own to evolve and change. American English is not a less pure version of English. British English is not any better heck it is even worse. It has changed a lot over the years to not be a very pure language either. American English is closer to the 16th century than British English is.
I don't know where to begin... I don't know any Americans who are "laisy". Nor do I know anyone, anywhere who says things that aren't "grammaticly" right.
I agree with the "British English" being the more correct version since it is the "original" one (I'm from Canada btw). One might also note however that when British singers sing, their accent is gone. But, I think the ungrammatical correctness is due to the evolution of the language. It's much easier to say "That's the lamest thing I've ever heard of" than, "That is the lamest thing of which I have ever heard" (since one is not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition). It's also due to the English language itself which has borrowed words from many other languages making the structure less "robust". Unlike English, French (which I'm studying) is much more conservative and the whole language would fall apart and be really awkward if one were to end a sentence with a preposition for example.
It's not unheard of to finish a French sentence with avec, but the language still has not fallen apart, as far as I'm aware.
I think your whole "original" argument has been blown out of the water by numerous other posters, so I won't talk about that. I just wanted to note my surprise that this is still being said despite lots of evidence to the contrary posted above.
I did want to comment on the false rule that you can't end a sentence with a preposition. It's not an English rule, it's a Latin rule, brought over to the English language by linguist snobs in the 17th and 18th centuries. They were trying to make English "better" by making it conform to a "better" language. As Winston Churchill famously said, "This is the sort of English up with which I will not put."
And to continue further, I think it's silly to prefer either American or British English as better because of irrelevant things such as which is the "original" or who follows prescriptive "rules" more. If you prefer one or the other, it shouldn't be based on such arbitrary judgments. What are you using as a reference point to say which is more "correct"?
I prefer American English because of stylistic reasons. I think that American English is much more standardized in terms of pronunciation and spelling. I think that if you pronounce "schedule" with an sh at the beginning, then you should pronounce "school" the same way. And correct me if I'm wrong (and I might be), but I'm pretty sure the last syllables of "honor" and "regulator" are pronounced the same way, yet the British spell one "-our" and the other "-or." And again, why do the British use the French spelling of "liter" ("litre") and not the French spelling of "letter" ("lettre")?
I also prefer American English due to its greater maintenance of the subjunctive, which I feel is stylistically better. Borrowing the example from the Wikipedia article, a brit would more likely say, "They suggested that he should apply for the job," instead of, "They suggested that he apply for the job." Although to be fair, the subjunctive is tragically in decline on both sides of the pond. If only the English-speaking populace were more interested in diction...