polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) (08/02/84)
<veal cordon bleu for the line-eater>
American English is not necessarily closer to the King's (or Queen's)
English. First, there is no single way of speaking English that is American
English - there are several dialects that diverge considerably one
from the other. Bostonians might have difficulties understanding any of
the Appalachian dialects.
This is because the settlers from England came mainly from the
classes that did not speak "cultured" English. If I remember correctly,
Mencken's The American Language points out that most of the dialects
of American English on the eastern seaboard can be traced to coastal
of England. The situation is complicated by the fact that the richer
American families sent their children to England to be educated. Their
speech was looked up to and imitated, and became the prestige dialect
in the richer urban centers like Boston and New York.
Most of the discussion about English on the net has been speculative
(my postings included). Further discussions should be
reseached and documented - but I fear I am bordering on heresy.
"real" is a four-letter word.
--
Henry Polard (You bring the flames; I'll bring the marshmallows.)
{ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polardron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (08/04/84)
The King doesn't speak any English, he's dead. -Ron BH: Don't you know the Queen's English? BG: Well, of course she is!
hav@dual.UUCP (Helen Anne Vigneau) (08/10/84)
<*munch*> Sorry, but a power outage the other night brought our system down and this newsgroup was lost before I got a chance to read the original article. Could you please repost it. Thank you very much in advance. Helen Anne Vigneau Dual Systems Corporation
gurr@west44.UUCP (Dave Gurr) (08/13/84)
< force of habit ... > > It irks me to be informed that we Americans do not speak the "King's > English", while the British do. Who said this? Certainly not me (I started this discussion, and it seems that I am being indirectly referred to here). > After all, American colonists were relatively isolated from other > cultures Don't forget that the American colonists consisted of Irish, German, French, Dutch, Italian and many other nationalities. They may have been isolated externally, but within America, they were confronted by a veritable plethora of accents, and (I should imagine) colloquialisms and idioms, with everyone (except the Irish and English) trying to learn a new language. > Meanwhile, back in England, extensive contact > between the European countries must have caused British English to > continue to evolve, in pronunciation, idiomatic usage, and spelling, > towards the other European languages. The direct contact between your average Joe Bloggs and your average Jacques Oignons, Fritz Kugelscreiber, Antonio di Capo and Manuel ( sorry, I can't think of a suitabel Spanish surname!) is zilch. Zero. A big fat nothing. This can hardly have been the same in the early days of America. If British English is changing in any particular direction, then it is towards American English. In recent years, mainly I'm sure due to the screening of American TV programmes, American accents, slang, idioms and (shock horror!) spellings have crept into British English. I'm sorry if some people thought that I was suggesting that I spoke the ** Q U E E N ' S ** English and that you guys (sic) over the pond spoke something entirely different. I was merely trying to raise discussion on what I consider to be an interesting and relevant point. Languages must and will evolve, and it is ridiculous to try and halt or change this (the French Language committee being a perfect example of this). Anyway, keep those articles coming - it's all good stuff ! mcvax "Hello shoes! I'm sorry \ but I'm going to have to ukc!west44!gurr stand on you again!" / vax135 Dave Gurr, Westfield College, Univ. of London, England.