I don't much care for it. It is apparently saying that
for the British, their language is more a part of them than ours is for us, and also that they appreciate their language more than we do.
Mind--I didn't say it isn't true--just that I don't like it.Interesting, I did not read it that way. I took the author to be expressing an opinion on disparate attitude toward language, and its role in society. As an example of what I understood the author to be tlking about, consider the whole question of "supererogatory" vowels. Many who speak American English are proud of the excision of such, viewing this as a more logical, efficient spelling, which, in truth, it is. It does seem seem to display that view of language as a tool, a means to an end, something that should be honed and refined to accomplish a designated purpose, devoid of unproductive frippery. In this, I have long perceived a "teutonic" influence, brooking none of the English tolerance of, and fondness for, whimsy.
I hasten to add that I don't view the, as I perceive it, utilitarian spirit of American English to be a bad thing, or to be inferior to the spirit of UK English, which I prefer. It is simply different, and that's what I took from the quote, that the observable differences in the "two" English languages are reflections of different philosophies. There was an element of superiority about the author's approach that I could not share, as he seems to be the sort of person who might scarcely deign to allow that the language
I speak should be called English. Despite that, I still think he made a valid point. Language is an expression of culture, and the culture of the United States has long been heavily influenced by Calvinist ideals, so why should not the language reflect the same appreciation for the frugal and the efficient, over the frivolous and redundant?
(Wee sleekit Max, is now in hiding, cowering timorously)
