|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
we've come very close of late to actually® saying something serious about the differences between 'dialects' of English; here's something John Fowles wrote in "Daniel Martin":
Nothing distinguishes us more clearly from the Americans, nothing characterizes better the very different ways we use our shared language -- the way they use it as a tool, even when they are being poetic, and the way we treat it as a poem, even when we are using it as a tool.
comments?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 137
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 137 |
Wow cool quote, although I don't totally agree with it, I like it. When I was in school in France everyone wanted to learn "American" instead of the British English taught in school. I always thought of American as more playful and British as more formal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
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) 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
(Wee sleekit Max, is now in hiding, cowering timorously)Been burnsed before have we, Max?  I'm not going to use Max's $9 words to say what I have to say. The whole supposition behind tsuwm's original, and no doubt intentionally controversial, quote is that there are two (count 'em) two, forms of English and that one is this and the other is that. Well, sorry, there are a lot more than that. In fact there is at least one dialect of spoken English, with its own whimsy, loan-words from other languages, pronunciation and usage, for every country that uses the core product. The only measure of "quality" is whether other people who speak it can understand it. Generally, but not always, the written form follows the basic rules but you'll find contractions, idioms and wholesale borrowing from other languages mixed in. You can verify this by looking at any newspaper website in any English-speaking country. Apart from Zild and Strine, which are markedly different from each other (as well as being different from American and British English) and are becoming more so as time goes on, two outstanding examples are Singlish and Filipino English. Whenever I'm in Singapore I get apologised to at least once for the unthinking use of Singlish. Singapore uses written English not too far removed from the common core, but speaks it much differently. The major difference between Zild and Singlish is that the accent is completely flat, with American vowel sounds. The word order sometimes varies - I'm told this is often due to the Mandarin influence. It's also spoken at something approaching the land speed record. But once you get used to it, you miss very little. Filipino English sometimes sounds like Tagalog - when Filipinos are speaking to each other you can get a shock to realise that they really are speaking English. "Educated" English is spoken with a twang like an exaggerated American accent. Normal spoken Filipino English includes lots of local dialect words and odd usages of English expressions. This is actually reflected in their newspaper written style, which reads like it was written by a New Zealand 10-year-old with a shaky grasp of grammar at times. These people use English every day, although it may not always be their first language. But they THINK in English, and that makes them English-speakers in my book. None of this is judgmental - it's just the way it is. I would guess that there are more people who speak a variety of English which is neither British nor American than there are who do ... [/rant]
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
I'm not going to use Max's $9 words to say what I have to say.USD, CDN, AUD, NZD, HKD - be specific please. I have either been flattered, or gravely insulted, depending upon the currency you had in mind! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
CK wrote: "...Zild and Strine, which are markedly different from each other.."
I think they are very similar. The accents are undeniably fused.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444 |
Re the original post, it seems to me like a vast generalisation. John Fowles may think the average British bureacrat or lawyer speaks poetry. I have my doubts. Then again, I also have my doubts about John Fowles' writing. Maybe he and I mean different things by poetry.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
In reply to:
CK wrote: "...Zild and Strine, which are markedly different from each other.."
I think they are very similar. The accents are undeniably fused.
Sorry, belligerentyouth, but the accents are quite undeniably NOT "fused" - confused, granted, but not fused. The accents are similar, but "Joined together into a whole" - absolutely not! Both Australians and NZers are very aware of the significant differences, particularly in vowel sounds. Just ask an Australian and a NZer to say the following sentence
"In Sydney, I picked up my pen to write six numbers down on my order for fish and chips"
and then see if you still think that the accents are fused.
The other point to remember is that CapK's post was about more than accent differnces -it was about divergence between Strine and Zild, and that divergence is significant. Zild still shows a preference for UK usage and spelling, while Strine is drifting Statesward, and Zild's integration of Maori words has accentuated the difference. Zild and Strine are, to borrow the words of Gimli, "Like, and yet unlike"
Noho ora mai, ka kite ano
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 87
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 87 |
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 redundantOh, Max, ya found us'n out! But, redemption is around the corner. We have soooooo many new influences from all over that the language (American) is changing, as ever! And, that frugality really is only a New Englandy sort of thing (check Emily Dickenson and Robert Frost and then take a look at the Southern writers, but please leave Hemingway out of this!) Besides, let it never be said that an American didn't wanna have fun - we just work at it . As to poetic and poems - well, so we get to wax poetic while composing poems. What do the Brits do? Aside from all this - I do love the Englishman's capacity for the frivolous - Alice in Wonderland comes to mind.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,351
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
775
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
