Why are the Americans ruining our language?

Great Debates
21

Aluminum was originally named “alumium” by Sir Humphry Davy, who later changed it to “aluminum” (perhaps in an attempt to make it more Latinized since alumen is Latin for alum, the aluminum compound that the name is derived from). The British (and allied English speakers) shortly thereafter changed the name once more, this time to “aluminium” so that it would again match the pattern of most other elements (helium, sodium, etc.), while the North Americans eventually decided to keep the second, slightly more traditional name.

I predict that North Americans will adopt the more regular “-ium” spelling by the year 2050, prompting the British to start calling it “alumininium”.

22

From that site:

“go f* yourself!** Exclam. An exclamation of anger at someone, such as ‘get lost!’ The demand isn’t meant literally.”

Whew. Good thing I read that.

Anyway, in regards to the OP… what you seem to be saying is that it’s peachy keen if you modify the language, but a crime if we do it. (Otherwise you’d still be speaking Old English, wouldn’t you?) You see, that’s generally referred to as ‘hypocrisy’ here.

But let’s be practical. We’re democratic countries, right? We could just vote on the Standard, one English speaker, one vote. After all, those who disapprove would be in the minority, and therefore it would take much less effort for the minority to switch over to whatever method the majority approves of.

Or we could just let people speak how they want to speak. So long as the primary goal of communication is met most people will be satisfied. If you personally want to speak beautifully, no one’s stopping you.

23

You mean we would all have to learn South Asian English? Careful what you wish for …

24

Not any more.

bmerton, posting the same thread in two different forums is called cross-posting and is not allowed here. Please don’t do it again.

bibliophage
moderator GQ

25

Maybe bmerton is getting confused between what is correct and what is commonly used?

Apart from any considerations about whether Americans are ruining our language, and whether we should be upset about that, different from is the grammatically-correct form of the phrase in British English. Even in this country “different to” is only used by (the many) people who have not been taught correctly, and any amount of (mis)usage cannot make it correct, any more than “should of” will become correct through its further misuse.

I shan’t be losing any sleep over Americans’ decisions to spell words any way they choose. For what it’s worth, you have all just witnessed my first ever use of the word “shan’t” – I normally, and deliberately, use “won’t” even though I know it to be non-standard. Remember what they say about people who live in glass houses?

26

What you say? Me speaking English good like, you think not?

Seriously, but, me think last thought mine best one is.

:d&r:

27

“Me speak bad English? That’s unpossible!”
-Ralph Wiggum, The Simpsons

28

I can relate to our British friend, and as an American, I see the decline of our language in the decline of intelligence, sheer laziness in proper speech, and from political correctness. But American culture is not to blame.

Simply put, eubonics and spanglesh are no more significant than pig latin.

Why should we consider someone’s lazy, ignorant (though that’s often the only big word in some peoples’ vocabularies) foul speech and slang as legitimate language?? I am insulted that our English language is being destroyed because slang words and the gross misuse of grammar are excused because they are “part of a different culture.” We have the dual problem of sloth and being PC, and this should be dealth with. I am tired of hearing people speak of wielding hatchets at other people and things. Let’s get back to a standard language and unite our diversities as Americans and share at least Englsh.

29

Sheesh.

30

[xenophobia]

bmerton, it’s time for a gentle reminder. Are ninety percent of the world’s Internet sites written in English because of your country’s economic and technological leadership? I think not.

Those of us across The Pond have no obligation to prostrate ourselves before your dialect. It’s a national self-respect we’ve earned through a revolution, two world wars spent saving your collective butts, and our current status as the world’s only superpower.

Your increasingly marginal spelling and speech habits still garner a modest amount of respect. Rather than evoke the subtlety and refinement of British English at its best, your post demonstrates a snobbery potent enough to drive away even the most anglophilic Americans.

So I’ll keep on corrupting your language. And if that doesn’t please you than just try to recolonize me.

Nyah nyah.

[/xenophobia]

31

First off, credit given where credit due: I borrowed part of my argument from this guy.

I fail to understand the problems that people have with, what is in essence, language evolving. Slang and improper grammar are all parts of what may evolve into proper usage. To quibble over whether or not someone says “one on a thousand” or “one in a thousand” in day-to-day informal conversation is beyond me (sorry pennylane I just scanned for an example and saw yours first).

Which brings me to my point: ultimately “proper” usage is determined by the situation. I think that we are all aware that the way we speak and the way we write are very different, and you can take it further (?) than that: how people write a formal essay compared to how they write a note to leave on the counter, or how one speaks to one’s friends as opposed to how one speaks to one’s boss. I would defy anyone to go into a southeast DC neighborhood and speak using the same grammar as they would in a doctoral thesis and believe they would be understood. And if you do something like this ask yourself in hindsight, who actually had the “proper English” in that encounter? In that situation, and others similar to, and more realistic than it, the person who’s home territory you are on has the proper Engish.

This is not to say that all new slang and improper grammar will become the new standard, just that some will. Just pointing out that the ones that do may become the “idiosyncrasies,” that the OP pointed out, for later generations.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t try to always use the most appropriate language considering the circumstances nor is there something wrong with correcting someone who is speaking, or writing, improperly considering the forum, but there should also be an understanding that often times people who are not using proper English as defined in grammar books are using English that has come to be considered mainstream. At this point the majority rules, and “one on a thousand” becomes proper.

32

If someone were to say, “one and a thousand gangsters chased me down the street”, I wouldn’t have any problem with it. But if the same person says, “the doctors said that there was a one and a thousand chance that my child would be born with this disorder”, I do have a problem with it, and my problem is that it is completely meaningless in that context.

33

Ok, this is getting a little heated now, but then I suppose that’s the point of the Great Debates threads. Well, here’s my two cents worth or should I say two pence worth as I’m British?

Before I start, two books some of you might find interesting on this subject, both by Bill Bryson, an American mainly brought up in England (or is it the other way around?) so is quite qualified to talk about the differences. The first is ‘Made in America- an informal history of the English Language in the United ‘, and the second is ‘The Mother Tongue – English and How it Got That Way’. I haven’t read the second one yet, as its on order, but if its anything like the first then it’s a very well written text, but very light hearted too. I apologise now if I steal any arguments from these books!

The way I see it is that so far points have been made on both sides that perhaps are over stating the truth and I will try and deal with them in some sort of order (that order being whichever comes to mind first!).

I suppose I ought to deal with BMerton’s OP first(I defended him over in a GQ thread which I’m feeling a bit miffed about now!).

You accuse Webster of dictating the English language in order to formalise it. You say this is wrong. So you don’t think that Dr Johnson, one of the great British academics, was dictating the English language when he wrote the first ever dictionary? Do you know how many words exist in the English language. He wouldn’t have been able to note and define every single one. He had to make choices as to what he thought constituted ‘proper’ English. This dictionary then became the basis of what was regarded as proper English and went on to become the Oxford English Dictionary, the very arbiter of what IS and ISN’T a ‘proper’ English word. Technically, if it isn’t in the OED, it isn’t English (or at least within Britain it isn’t). So, while I feel the French have taken it WAY too far, we are also as guilty of forcibly modifying our language too.

Secondly, Dave Stewart is right. English is going to be different everywhere. If you can’t cope with American English being different to ‘English’ English, then how the hell do you cope with the difference between our local vocabularies? Does someone from Newcastle speak the same English as someone from Cornwall or Wales. Hell no!

Again, those who have said that there is a proper grammar, that this grammar is set in stone and should never be changed are taking things too far. Grammar is there for a reason – it is there to lay down some ground rules to enable us to understand each other. Grammar 500 years ago was VERY different from grammar today. These things will change and as long as we can all understand what another says, as long as we pretty much follow the same rules, whats the problem?

The only other point I can remember offhand (Thank God I hear you all cry!) is that American English actually a lot closer to the English of 1800 than British English is. Apparently, this is true and is down to the fundamentally conservative nature of those who formed the first Pilgrims. These are people who fled to preserve their way of life as they saw it, so they regarded it as fundamental that they rpeserved their language too. An example is the word Fall to descrie Autumn. An early 19th Century Englishman would not now what Autumn meant – he would have used fall.

Anyway, enough of this rant – the only thing is to quote scampering gremlin “Saving your collective butts in two World Wars”. You joined for your own reasons- watch what you say!! grin

34

What’s the point of having any grammar rules or dictionaries at all? In fact, what’s the point of even having formal languages? We can probably make ourselves understood quite well by gesticulating and grunting as we used to in the good old days…

Finally, I see the light.

35

AWK!! AWK!! EEH-EEH-EEH!! HUH!

Sua

36

Am I the only one who has never heard anyone use the phrase “one and a thousand”? Come to think of it, I only hear “one in a thousand” rarely. “One in a million” is quite common, though I have alway heard it used with “in a” not “and a”

37

Hear, Hear, IZZARDESQUE. You will enjoy the second Bryson book. Recommended to all fans of American (and Canadian)spoken English. The OP might be a little less tight-assed if he read them.

38

Well, I’ve only seen it once, so I don’t know why I’ve been making such a big deal about it…

No, wait, what I meant to say was:

ba weet grana weet miniban

erk erk

rok

39

pennylane, I didn’t say we shouldn’t have any grammar at all. We need grammar in order to make ourselves understood, and if it is abused too much then what we say and write becomes incomprehensible. But rigidly enforcing very strict, and in some cases archaic, rules of grammar is counter productive.

I’m with 5-HT tho, I’ve never heard the expression using AND either

40

Well, I think that according to Standard Grunt that should have been:

AEWK!! AEWK!! OEEH-OEEUH-OEEUH!! HUH!

But, like, whatever.